“We didn’t just hurt people—we betrayed the values we now claim to believe in.”
When a government, institution, or community apologizes for historical or systemic wrongdoing, it is not enough to name the harm.
It is not enough to say what happened.
Or even why it was wrong.
The deepest and most transformative apologies go one step further.
They say, out loud and for the record:
“The values we once violated—equality, dignity, justice—are the values we now endorse. And we commit ourselves to them not just in words, but in practice.”
This is what philosopher Nick Smith calls endorsing the moral principles underlying each harm—a vital step in any meaningful collective apology. Without this, the apology risks being hollow: a moment of grief without a future of integrity.
Because apology, at its best, is not just a reckoning with the past.
It is a reaffirmation of who we want to be next.
From Naming Harm to Recommitting to Values
Let’s say a nation apologizes for colonizing Indigenous lands. It names the forced removals, the broken treaties, the cultural erasure. It even says, “This was wrong.”
But then what?
If the apology ends there, it still leaves open the question:
What do you believe now?
What values guide you today?
That’s where endorsement comes in. The collective must say:
- “We now affirm the principle of self-determination.”
- “We uphold the dignity of Indigenous identity, language, and governance.”
- “We believe this land was never ours to take, and we support restorative justice.”
This is no longer just about regret. It is about moral renewal.
Why This Step Is Often Skipped—and Why It Matters
Smith observes that many collective apologies avoid endorsing specific moral principles for one reason: it creates obligations.
- Endorsing justice might require reparations.
- Endorsing equality might demand policy reform.
- Endorsing dignity might challenge long-standing practices.
So instead, collectives stay vague: they say “we’re sorry” without ever naming what they now believe.
They avoid saying what they stand for—because doing so might mean changing how they operate.
But here’s the truth:
There is no meaningful apology without moral recommitment.
Without that, the apology remains frozen in the past.
With it, the apology becomes a promise to the future.
What Endorsement Sounds Like
An institution that once practiced racial exclusion doesn’t just say, “We regret our past.”
It says:
“We now affirm that all people are morally equal.
We condemn the beliefs that once shaped our policies.
And we commit to actively dismantling racism within and beyond our institution.”
A church that once covered up abuse doesn’t just say, “We failed.”
It says:
“We now believe transparency, accountability, and protection of the vulnerable are sacred duties.
We commit to defending these principles in everything we do.”
These are not just words. They are ethical anchors—public declarations of what the group now stands for, and how it intends to change.
Why Endorsement Builds Trust
Victims and their descendants often ask:
“How do I know you’ve changed?”
“How do I know this apology isn’t just a performance?”
When a collective publicly affirms the moral principles it once violated—and links those principles to reform, education, and action—it builds credibility.
It shows that the group understands not only what it did, but why it matters.
And it sends a message:
“You were not just wronged—we wronged ourselves by betraying our own values. And we are committed to living differently now.”
That is when apology becomes more than memory.
It becomes moral repair.
Reflection Questions for Readers:
- Have you ever heard a collective apology that named the harm but failed to say what values were violated—or what values are now embraced?
- Are there institutions or communities you belong to that could take this step today?
- What would it look like to say, “We once violated human dignity—and now we commit ourselves fully to protecting it”?
Apology as Ethical Rebirth
Apologies are not just about confessing what we did.
They are about declaring who we are—and who we strive to become.
When collectives endorse the moral principles they once betrayed, they do more than apologize.
They re-enter the moral community with humility.
They seek restoration through action.
They begin again—this time, anchored in truth.
Because a real apology is not just about the past.
It is a moral promise.
A declaration that says:
“We know the harm.
We name the wrong.
We affirm the good.
And we will live by it.”