Hacker News Reader

Comment by colinmorelli | Hacker News Reader

This thought experiment is flawed. It assumes the only variable worth considering are the actions of the individual. The reality is that we apologize all the time for doing something that, done one day previously or to a different person, would not have been a problem at all.

We're typically not apologizing for the act itself, we're apologizing for the effect it had. We don't mean "sorry for writing code with bugs in it", for example. We mean "sorry the bugs in the code caused you problems."

View on HN

The though experiment illustrates that the same actions in different circumstances can have different results. What part of that assumes the only variable worth considering are the actions of the individual? The central point is that, as you say, whether or not we apologize depends on the circumstances.

I agree that you have to consider more than only the actions of the individual. I believe, if there is fault, it lies with not just one person, but also the circumstances. In cases where the circumstances are determined by management, company culture, legacy code, etc, the fault lies with many if not everyone. Thus, if one should apologize, then everyone should apologize.

Apologies for my misunderstanding (hah, very topical for the post). The way it concluded made me interpret it as if you were trying to suggest that the person's actions were the same, and thus the scenarios were the same.

Hmm. I guess I kind of did mean that. Rather, I meant to make people question whether the individuals actions were all that mattered.

Another example: If my wife wants me to invest in stocks and I do so after doing a lot of research and preparation, and that stock goes down, do I apologize? Do I apologize because of things that happen after and independent of my original actions? Or maybe my wife should apologize? Maybe nobody should apologize? How much depends on the stock market? Out of our control and comprehension.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com