From 8b85e1e10091aa5771374c683e92ba355acd2430 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Zack M. Davis" Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2026 18:31:53 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] pre-draft notes on "Repentance vs. Compensation" --- content/drafts/repentance_vs_compensation.md | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 39 insertions(+) create mode 100644 content/drafts/repentance_vs_compensation.md diff --git a/content/drafts/repentance_vs_compensation.md b/content/drafts/repentance_vs_compensation.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6b0cdba --- /dev/null +++ b/content/drafts/repentance_vs_compensation.md @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@ +Title: Repentance vs. Compensation +Date: 2027-01-01 +Status: draft +Category: philosophy +Tags: regret + +Previously, on the topic of when to apologize, [I wrote](https://zackmdavis.net/blog/2026/Jun/contra-pace-on-when-to-apologize/)— + +> When someone wrongs me, it seems like the _smallest_ ask I could reasonably make in exchange for my forgiveness is that they not do that again (or more generally, update their policy such that they're less likely to do it again). Not to ask to be "made whole"—[for the past cannot be changed](http://unremediatedgender.space/2020/Dec/liability/)—but simply that they do better in the future, which can. +> +> If they refuse, saying, "That's sad, but I will not stop doing the thing that hurt you. Yet I will take this cost on _my_ ledger. I'm sorry. That's on me. Think of me as owing you a small something you can cash out another time," I have to admit I'm skeptical. If I can't ask _not to be hurt again_, what can I ask for? Money? Chocolate? Their car? + +[TODO— + +A skeptic might reply, wait, yes, obviously. Compensation in other goods is the normal case. + +Indeed, vNM continuity axiom seems to imply that it should work that way. If Agent A lowers agent B's utility, then there should be some payment from A to B that makes B whole. B has no further cause to complain, because B has been "made whole". (Whereas if B hasn't been made whole, B will terminate the relationship at minimum—it's not benefiting B—and possibly seek timeless revenge to show B is not to be messed with.) Making B whole keeps B bought in to the relationship. + +There are indeed lots of situations that work this way: the airline pays you to get bumped from an overbooked flight, just a commercial transaction. + +But some things don't work that way. We should taboo "apology" and think of two things that both might result in someone saying "I'm sorry": compensation, and repentence. We want to keep track of these two separate phenomena. We know that compensation is real; the economic logic is straightforward. Set it aside for now. + +But repentance is also a real thing in human psychology, that doesn't simply amount to compensation. What is it doing, psychologically? If the humans aren't vNM agents, how does the thing they're doing at least sort of make sense? + +Compensation includes cases where the actor wouldn't have acted differently, but wants to maintain the relationship. + +But sometimes people actually do regret things—to think that if they had been smarter or braver, they would and should have acted differently. + +Part of what's going on in trusted relationships is that we _don't_ make the utilities balance exactly; we're happy to roll over small balances in either direction, and probably not even keep that much track. (Whereas commercial relationships with some random store are expected to balance: the transaction is the transaction, not a bond.) But trusted relationships depend on trust (that you're the sort of person who would do right by me and vice versa). If something threatens that trust, the thing that's desired from an "apology" is not being made whole, but the restoration of the trust, by the sinner having credibly learned their lesson. + +There might be an apology gift, which superficially looks like compensation, but the difference is that the gift is a mere costly _signal_ of intent to change rather than being precisely sized to cancel out the harm. + +It's important to understand the distinction. Accidents don't need full compensation if you're sorry, but crimes demand vengence and punishment. + +You should notice when you're offering compensation and when you're repenting, and you should have a concept of repentance. + +If you stab my friend in the throat such that he'll never speak in public again, then you are my enemy. If it was a freak accident, I'd accept an apology (and an apology gift as a signal that you're actually sorry and it's not just cheap talk). If it's like, "Sorry, but his voice was just so annoying. I still like you, though", then you're still an enemy; I'm not going to be bought off. + +] -- 2.53.0