Sorry for Being Right: A Case Against Grounding Political Apologies on Moral Wrongness

Most political philosophers assume that political apologies are appropriate only in response to past morally wrongful acts committed by state officials. In this article, I challenge the view that moral wrongdoing is a necessary condition for the duty to issue a public apology. I argue that political apologies may be warranted even in the absence of past moral wrongs – particularly in cases where morally justified political actions nevertheless inflict harm on innocent parties. My central claim is that there exists a duty to alleviate the harm suffered by the blameless, regardless of whether such harm was morally justified or even necessary, and that political apologies represent an appropriate means of discharging this duty. I begin by examining this hypothesis at a more basic, interpersonal level – apologies between private individuals – before extending the analysis to the political realm. To support my argument, I draw on a historical example from the Second World War: the British decision to bomb German cities in late 1940. I present Winston Churchill’s choice to target civilian areas, resulting in the deaths of innocent people (including infants), as both morally justified and harmful. I argue that the harm caused to innocent families created an obligation for Churchill to apologise, despite the justificatory context of war. I conclude that adopting a harm-based account prompts a revised categorisation of the necessary criteria for a proper political apology.