A Kantian Critique of "Sorry" by Justin Bieber

The central moral question posed in the 2015 song “Sorry” by Justin Bieber, i.e., “Is it too late to say sorry?” is actually not a moral question at all when viewed through a Kantian lens. The question in itself contains the answer: yes, it is too late to say sorry, not in the sense that has anything to do with the nature of time, but rather the form of the question itself shows that the song fundamentally misunderstands what an apology is. When we consider the question’s implications, Bieber is not asking “What do I owe to the person I have wronged?” Instead, the question primarily asks whether saying sorry is still worth anything. Utilizing a language of strategy instead of duty, such as “Could someone call a referee?” or “one more shot at forgiveness” further indicates that the question might not be asked in good faith. If one’s apology becomes a means towards an end, then it is a hypothetical imperative. You expect to gain forgiveness by using the apology. A moral obligation, however, does not depend on whether the desired consequence remains available. The song’s question of whether it is too late shows that Bieber measures the value of this apology by what it can accomplish. One’s admissions of wrongdoing do not change this either. He claims “I made those mistakes maybe once or twice”, and then admits, “maybe a couple of hundred times”. Therefore, Bieber cannot claim ignorance of the fact that he has wronged someone. However, the song does not seem focused on this. It continues, “So let me redeem myself tonight” and “I just need one more shot at second chances.” The concern thus shifts immediately from the wrong done to the apparent consequences suffered by the wrongdoer. But moral redemption is not restoring one’s preferences. If one was acting from duty, their maxim would be simpler: I have done wrong; therefore I ought to acknowledge it. Whether forgiveness is possible is irrelevant, and the same goes for whether he gets another chance or not. If, in this form, the apology is valuable only because it can secure a second chance or redemption, then it is not a moral duty; it is merely a potentially useful strategy. Further in the song, Bieber clarifies that he’s “missing more than just your body”. This is the real reason for which the apology is being rendered. He is not confronting the wrong he committed; instead, he is confronting the loss of something he desired. His attempt to qualify his intention by claiming that his feelings of missing encompass “more than just your body” does not solve this problem either. It just tells us that he values the affection, perhaps companionship, and the general relationship itself. But the categorical imperative requires treating another person as an end in itself, not as a means to satisfy one’s desires. Thus, we can ask ourselves: would the apology still be rendered if Bieber knew for sure there is no second chance or redemption? If not, then the apology was rendered not because of the wrong done in the first place, but to restore what the wrongdoer lost. In later verses, the lyrics seem to reinforce this suspicion. The line “I’ll take every single piece of the blame if you want me to” is morally revealing. If one considers themselves responsible for a wrong done, that responsibility can not depend on the victim’s request. One either takes the responsibility in good faith, or they do not at all. Furthermore, the song states “there is no innocent one in this game for two” which again reveals that instead of offering a moral apology, the song seems to consider wrongdoing as a contest in which the guilt of the other party is enough to diminish their own. But another person’s misconduct cannot alter the maxim by which he acted. Finally, the lyrics “can we both say the words and forget this?” highlight that the objective is closure rather than moral acknowledgment. Bieber qualifies his position again with “I’m not just tryna get you back on me” but the denial does little to resolve the problem once more. One’s moral worth absolutely cannot be established just by declaring the purity of their motives. The maxim must be examined instead. If the maxim is “When I have wronged someone and fear losing them, I will apologize in the hope of regaining them,” then the apology remains hypothetical, and more importantly, fundamentally self-interested. Thus, the song’s central question ironically reveals the very moral failure it seems to try to repair. “Is it too late?” in this context translates to “is an apology still capable of getting what I want?” Once an apology is evaluated by whether it can secure forgiveness and reconciliation, it ceases to be an action grounded in duty. So, yes, it is too late to say sorry, as the song conceives it. This, however, does not stop Bieber from doing what morality requires: accepting the wrong without demanding anything in return. Instead of asking whether it was too late to say sorry, the moral thing to do would have been to just say it. However, even though the question has a clear objective moral answer, we cannot attribute any moral judgment to Bieber as a human being; we can only answer the moral question as posed in the song. If one were to consider another interpretation of the song itself, the question posed might not be in a moral context, but rather as a rhetorical device, i.e., the artist knows the song is not talking about a sincere apology, but rather it is pointing out that we can often say sorry insincerely just because we miss more than their body. This can also explain the intentional decision to pair an upbeat dance track with lyrics that, on the surface, seem to be about something much more serious. Note: You can find the public version history of my articles on my github: link.