Philosophy Discussion Forums

There's a sort of social apology (maybe something like "I fight against this medical problem all the time; I'm sorry that you had to suffer some of the consequences") that expresses genuine regret but does not admit moral responsibility.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑Yesterday, 3:13 pm If one's ailment is not physical, it's unrealistic to expect anyone to cut you any slack. Break a leg and everyone gets it. Have brain issues, everyone judges. Deceit has been so common for so long that most people don't trust excuses for behavioural faux pas.

[...]

What are the choices? Grin, bear it, issue any appropriate apologies, persevere. Not unlike with my recent gut issues, one simply try to operate with care, and hope that this prevents recurrences.

Yes, indeed. But I'm not so much looking for practical coping strategies — although they might come in handy! — as for the responsibility that lies behind it all. And with whom that responsibility lies.

There are things autists can do in social situations to make it less likely that they will have melt-downs. It takes a bit of forethought but it is possible in many cases.

In my particular example, I had no idea I was approaching a meltdown; no warning.

And if one does experience a melt-down in a social situation, then one can apologise and explain that autism contributed to it. Most people will be open to that, especially if no lasting damage has been caused.

My experience is quite the opposite. People are open to knee-jerk rejection and anger, but rarely to understanding or forgiveness. Bear in mind that the example we are considering is *outrageous*, in the view of the 'audience'. It isn't just a nudge when you're carrying beer, this is where significant offence has been recognised and taken.

LuckyR wrote: ↑Today, 2:31 am But it doesn't really matter if the person you apologize to agrees (with your inner appreciation of the idea) you aren't actually (morally) responsible for the outburst.

Yes, except that it is unlikely that your 'audience' will appreciate or accept that. It is much more likely that they will respond in exactly the way that will maximise the negativity of the entire situation, for *everyone* concerned, even gawking bystanders. And that way is to attack the offender (hopefully verbally), shouting, screaming, and demanding spoken responses that are not possible because the autist is not in control. Also, the anger and abuse hugely worsens the meltdown and its consequences — positive feedback, causing a sort of 'howl-round'.



But it looks like we have perhaps exhausted what we have here. Responsibility always remains with the individual, but also applies to those around or nearby. [LuckyR's "moral" and "social" responsibility.] That is the question I asked, and it seems we have drifted toward an answer, yes?

Good_Egg wrote: ↑Today, 5:17 am There's a sort of social apology (maybe something like "I fight against this medical problem all the time; I'm sorry that you had to suffer some of the consequences") that expresses genuine regret but does not admit moral responsibility.

This is interesting, because in the past I have encountered something weird. If you apologise wrongly, for the wrong thing, or in the wrong way, you lay yourself open to all kinds of unpleasant accusations. I think the phrase "passive-aggressive" comes into it.

For myself, I am always happy to apologise for any offence my words or actions have caused, but I won't apologise for being wrong if I was right. That often seems to cause difficulties.

When one is apologising, there are *some* circumstances where one is, in effect, expected to grovel and submit, to admit all that one's accusers require; to humiliate oneself as a sort of punishment for one's transgression(s).

Such situations, I am wholly unable to navigate.