Davide Saracino
University of Milan

Most political philosophers take it as a given that political apologies are only appropriate in response to previous morally wrongful acts on the part of state officials. However, I believe it is possible to identify cases in which political apologies ought to be offered in spite of the absence of past moral wrongs. In particular, in some instances morally right political choices also inflict plenty of harm on innocent parties. I suggest that harm constitutes a more promising ground for the duty to apologise publicly than moral wrongness. First, I test this hypothesis at a more basic, non-political level—that of interpersonal apologies among private actors. Thereafter, I extend it to the realm of political apologies. In order to prove my point, I provide a relevant historical example from World War II: the British decision to bomb German cities made in late 1940. I purport to describe Churchill’s choice to kill innocent civilians (e.g., infants) as both right and harmful. I add that this latter feature is the normative ground that entails the duty to apologise. Finally, I conclude that the theoretical shift towards a harm-based account of political apologies is not a matter of purely abstract reasoning but also affects performative issues regarding how apologies ought to be given in the public sphere.follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA).
The paper highlights the diversity of egalitarian perspectives within Latin America, enriching global philosophical discourse. Furthermore, explores how EOp is viewed and applied, from theoretical debates to practical actions. It also contributes to the philosophical field by diversifying the debates and highlighting the significance of EOp in Latin America. It also exposes the dynamics and barriers in Anglo-Saxon academic journals and emphasizes the need for inclusive practices in philosophical research.

Chair: Armin Mašala
Time: September 13th, 10:40 – 11:10
Location: SR 1.006, online
