Perhaps, perhaps not. My comment was intended to be descriptive, not prescriptive.
But if we’re going to talk prescriptively…
… then I will note that “unreasonable” is a matter of perspective. You think you’re being reasonable, I think you’re being unreasonable… what is there, except our respective opinions?
No, the right thing to ask isn’t whether one or the other party is being “unreasonable”; the right things to ask are:
Who has what power?
If I act in this-and-such a way, what will be the consequences?
Whether one of these questions or the other should get greater emphasis, depends on the situation.
Suppose that the person demanding an apology is your significant other. Thinking in terms of power in such a case may not be productive, but consider it in terms of actions and consequences:
If you apologize, your S.O. will be pleased; but you may be displeased (or not; this depends on your disposition, the history of the relationship, etc.)
If you don’t apologize, your S.O. will be displeased; but you may be pleased (ditto)
In either case, your actions may prolong the relationship, or shorten it; they may make the relationship more harmonious, or more acrimonious; etc. (And of course these aren’t the only two options; there may be others.)
Note that this analysis is wholly unaffected by the question of whether your S.O. was being “reasonable” or not, in demanding the apology (their, or your, perception of their unreasonableness, may affect things—but not the fact itself).
Conversely, in the Intel case (and similar ones), a power-based analysis may be more useful. (I leave it as an exercise to other commenters.)
It seems like “reasonableness” is mostly about willingness to follow established precedents and norms, the main consequence of apologizing usually has to do with establishing new norms or reinforcing existing ones, and power is what you have when the established “reasonable” norm is to do what’s in your interests—so these things should be treated as different manifestations of a single phenomenon rather than separate. In the Intel case, the obvious analysis is that admitting that they acted “unreasonably” could put them on the hook for replacing millions of defective CPUs, that is, a norm would be established that would transfer power away from Intel and towards its customers.
To be clear, it wasn’t my intent to suggest that the consequences-based and the power-based perspectives are different—I agree that they’re manifestations of the same phenomenon. It’s just that one may be a more intuitive way of thinking about certain situations than the other.
It seems like “reasonableness” is mostly about willingness to follow established precedents and norms, the main consequence of apologizing usually has to do with establishing new norms or reinforcing existing ones, and power is what you have when the established “reasonable” norm is to do what’s in your interests
Indeed, this analysis clarifies the relationship, and I agree with all of it.
Perhaps, perhaps not. My comment was intended to be descriptive, not prescriptive.
But if we’re going to talk prescriptively…
… then I will note that “unreasonable” is a matter of perspective. You think you’re being reasonable, I think you’re being unreasonable… what is there, except our respective opinions?
No, the right thing to ask isn’t whether one or the other party is being “unreasonable”; the right things to ask are:
Who has what power?
If I act in this-and-such a way, what will be the consequences?
Whether one of these questions or the other should get greater emphasis, depends on the situation.
Suppose that the person demanding an apology is your significant other. Thinking in terms of power in such a case may not be productive, but consider it in terms of actions and consequences:
If you apologize, your S.O. will be pleased; but you may be displeased (or not; this depends on your disposition, the history of the relationship, etc.)
If you don’t apologize, your S.O. will be displeased; but you may be pleased (ditto)
In either case, your actions may prolong the relationship, or shorten it; they may make the relationship more harmonious, or more acrimonious; etc. (And of course these aren’t the only two options; there may be others.)
Note that this analysis is wholly unaffected by the question of whether your S.O. was being “reasonable” or not, in demanding the apology (their, or your, perception of their unreasonableness, may affect things—but not the fact itself).
Conversely, in the Intel case (and similar ones), a power-based analysis may be more useful. (I leave it as an exercise to other commenters.)
It seems like “reasonableness” is mostly about willingness to follow established precedents and norms, the main consequence of apologizing usually has to do with establishing new norms or reinforcing existing ones, and power is what you have when the established “reasonable” norm is to do what’s in your interests—so these things should be treated as different manifestations of a single phenomenon rather than separate. In the Intel case, the obvious analysis is that admitting that they acted “unreasonably” could put them on the hook for replacing millions of defective CPUs, that is, a norm would be established that would transfer power away from Intel and towards its customers.
To be clear, it wasn’t my intent to suggest that the consequences-based and the power-based perspectives are different—I agree that they’re manifestations of the same phenomenon. It’s just that one may be a more intuitive way of thinking about certain situations than the other.
Indeed, this analysis clarifies the relationship, and I agree with all of it.