Subscribe to my Feed
« Do you accept Neale Donald Walsch’s apology? | Home | Just how ethical is the weight loss industry? »
When it comes to apologies, intent matters!
By Lauren | January 12, 2009
It’s been interesting to see how many readers have checked out my most recent post about Neale Donald Walsch’s apology to fellow author Candy Chand for his unattributed publication of a story she had written on his Beliefnet.com blog. There have been a lot of comments on this incident, both on this site and elsewhere, as people weigh in with their various views on the situation.
Not to pick on Mr. Walsch - I continue to believe that he made an honest mistake and has sincerely apologized for it - this situation offers such a marvelous example of the interesting issues that arise around apologies that it deserves further discussion. The commentators on this story seem to break roughly into two camps. First there are the people who think Walsch used Chand’s story unintentionally and, having apologized, should be forgiven. Then, there are the people who are offended by the first group’s willingness to forgive Walsch, who believe that he unlawfully plagiarized Chand’s story and should pay for it regardless of what he intended.
I don’t think most people have suggested that Mr. Walsch’s apology should relieve him of the responsibility to make amends to Ms. Chand for any injury he’s caused her. That’s where his liability (if any) for plagiarism comes in, and it’s something for a court to resolve if the two authors can’t. Nonetheless, this isn’t a situation where one party is making an accusation of plagiarism and the other denies it all the way to the verdict. Mr. Walsch has fully admitted to using Ms. Chand’s story and, apart from seeking to explain how it probably happened, has taken responsibility and apologized. He may owe Ms. Chand money, but is that a reason not to forgive him?
The commentators who seem inclined to accept Mr. Walsch’s apology emphasize that he used Chand’s story without any intent to steal it, and they have a point. Intent is important, and the law recognizes that when it punishes accidental misconduct less harshly than intentional wrongdoing. (Prosecutors can’t even get a conviction unless they can prove that a defendant had criminal intent.)
Perhaps the folks who won’t forgive him just don’t believe Mr. Walsch’s use of Ms. Chand’s story was unintentional. That’s their right, of course. But when it comes to apologies, just as with the law, intent is important. An unintentional mistake should be more forgivable than a deliberate wrong.
Topics: Apologies, Personal Ethics, Professional Ethics, ethics |
January 18th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
The more I read about it the more it seems the critics care less about punishing Walsch for plagiarizing something, and more about punishing Walsch because he is Walsch.
January 21st, 2009 at 11:50 pm
[...] presents When it comes to apologies, intent matters! posted at The Business Ethics Blog, saying, “People are still divided over Neil Donald [...]
January 30th, 2009 at 1:53 am
[...] presents When it comes to apologies, intent matters! posted at The Business Ethics Blog, saying, “People are still divided over Neil Donald [...]