Much of our private and public moral discourse occurs in the giving, receiving, or demanding of apologies, yet we rarely make explicit precisely what we expect from a gesture of contrition. As a result, apologizing has become a vague, clumsy, and sometimes spiteful ritual. We intuitively understand that certain kinds of apologies can be life transforming for both victims and offenders. Some apologies, however, can be worse than none at all. Empty gestures may masquerade as soul-searching apologies, sometimes because this seems like the least burdensome means of restoring a relationship to its status quo. On other occasions, an offender may intentionally wish to deceive or manipulate a victim with an apology. Such duplicity occurs not only between adversaries but also among friends, relatives, and lovers. Whether an unrepentant executive orders her attorney to feign contrition so that an injured party will settle a claim or an abusive husband with no intention to reform says to his wife that he is “sorry that” she is upset, we can see how victims stand to suffer further injuries if they attribute more meaning to an apology than warranted.

This brings me to the passage from Adrienne Rich quoted at the outset of this chapter: “Lies are usually attempts to make everything simpler – for the liar – than it really is, or ought to be.” Apologies are complex interactions, and many attempts to simplify them use ‘sorry’ to obscure injustices rather than to accept blame for wrongdoings. Many apologies lie.