“It was an accident.”
“But people were still hurt. Who speaks for that?”
When someone causes harm, we often ask: Was it on purpose?
Intent matters. It shapes how we interpret guilt, how we punish wrongdoing, and how we forgive.
But in collective settings—when a government, institution, or corporation causes harm—intent can be difficult to trace, and dangerously easy to deny.
In I Was Wrong: The Meanings of Apologies, philosopher Nick Smith explores this tension: How should collectives apologize when the harm was accidental—or when they claim they never intended it? What happens when the line between mistake and neglect blurs? And how do we respond when the harm was real, but no one seems to own it?
This is the terrain of collective accidents and denials of intent—where moral responsibility is most often dodged, and where apology is most urgently needed.
When No One Meant It—But It Still Happened
Consider these examples:
- A pharmaceutical company releases a drug with deadly side effects it failed to detect.
- A university’s admissions algorithm unintentionally disadvantages poor or minority applicants.
- A military airstrike hits a civilian target based on flawed intelligence.
- A public health agency rolls out a policy that increases harm to disabled or marginalized groups.
In each case, the harm may not have been intentional. But it happened. And often, it happened because of systemic failures: inadequate oversight, cost-cutting decisions, willful ignorance, or lack of accountability.
These are not acts of malice. But they are not innocent either.
And when institutions hide behind the word “accident,” they risk turning unintended harm into unacknowledged harm.
Why “We Didn’t Mean To” Isn’t Enough
Intent matters in criminal law. But in ethics—especially in apology—impact matters more.
Smith reminds us that an apology is not only about confessing motive. It is about owning consequences. When collectives cause harm, they must focus not just on what they meant to do—but on what they actually did.
A meaningful collective apology does not begin with:
“We’re sorry you were hurt.”
It begins with:
“We hurt you. We failed in our duty to prevent harm. And we take responsibility.”
Even if no one meant to cause suffering, someone must respond to it. Otherwise, the victims are left alone with the consequences.
The Temptation to Deny Intent
Why do collectives so often deny intent?
- To avoid legal liability
- To protect their reputation
- To distance themselves from blame
- To reframe the narrative from wrongdoing to misfortune
But Smith warns that this erodes moral credibility. A collective that constantly insists, “We didn’t mean to,” begins to sound evasive, not ethical. It seems more interested in preserving power than repairing harm.
Worse, this denial sends a chilling message to victims:
“You were hurt, but not in a way that counts.”
Facing the Moral Weight of Systems
Many collective harms result not from a single bad actor—but from systemic failure: flawed procedures, broken communication, dehumanizing policies. These are harder to see, and easier to deny. But they are no less real.
When collectives own these failures, they begin to restore trust.
When they hide behind complexity, they deepen the damage.
The truth is: most harm in modern life is unintentional, systemic, collective.
That’s exactly why we need collective accountability—not less of it.
What a Responsible Collective Apology Looks Like
Even when intent is absent, collectives can—and should—apologize. A responsible apology might sound like:
“We did not foresee this harm, but we recognize that our systems failed. We regret the suffering this caused. We take responsibility for the consequences. We are committed to reforming our processes and preventing future harm.”
This type of apology does not pretend the harm didn’t happen.
It does not hide behind technicalities.
It recognizes that responsibility can exist without intention.
That’s what makes it meaningful.
Reflection Questions for Readers:
- Have you ever heard an institutional apology that denied intent but failed to take responsibility? How did it land?
- How do you distinguish between an accident and a failure of care or foresight?
- What would it mean for a collective you belong to—your workplace, your government, your community—to say: “We didn’t mean to—but we still must make it right”?
Accident Does Not Mean Innocence
We don’t need villains to have victims.
We don’t need evil intent to cause deep harm.
And we don’t need perfect blame to make a real apology.
As Smith reminds us, collectives must move beyond the language of evasion. They must own the systems they build. The outcomes they produce. The people they harm, even unintentionally.
Only then can they earn trust again.
Only then can their apologies mean something.
Only then can they say—not just with sorrow, but with sincerity:
“We didn’t mean to.
But it happened.
And we are responsible.”