The Nature of Forgiveness
It isn't at all an uncommon thing that as I lie awake at night struggling to sleep, I find myself wondering about things. Often they're idle little things. Some times I hit on something a bit more interesting. This particular morning I find myself wondering about human nature
( Read more... )
I mean, I personally could not imagine someone "forgiving" Adolph Hitler for killing thousands and thousands of innocent people. But why is that? Why is it in our nature to decide that something is simply beyond absolution? Is a sense of justice built into us, or are we merely motivated by the concepts of fear and hatred? Is redemption inherently selfish, or can a person seek forgiveness for reasons other than his own guilt?
I didn't state any circumstance, because in this case there are no circumstances that really matter. A man that breaks into your car because "a sociopath told him to" versus a man who simply broke into your car because he wanted to. To what extent does it really matter which is which, when the weight of both crimes are identical? They both had different reasons, but they still did something they now regret, and they are attempting to redeem themselves. We're mostly just addressing the bottom line: "Was something bad done to you, and is the person sorry for doing it?"
In the example of your father, if he asks for forgiveness only with an ulterior motive, then he is not sincerely regretful. In that case, it does not apply, because for right now I'm merely commenting on a hypothetical ideal. He has to be truly, and completely sincerely, sorry for what he's done. Otherwise yes, the point is moot.
As I say, I don't have any particular reason for the question. It's merely something I've thought about.
Reply
So in a normal case if all the requirements you noted are met I'd say yes, you should forgive them. But all the requirements are rarely met and there are some fringe people who will just keep going. Unfortunately, a person who commits a near unforgivable offense would either be too enamored with himself or too afraid or embarrased to apologize. And then on top of that, in the ideal you're describing no further acts of aggression may be presupposed, but in reality why would a person who is almost literally "getting away with murder" be convinced not to offend again? It's a learning process I think. Actions have consequences and where they don't we may proceed regardless of the moral implication. So, in a perfect world I would forgive someone who apologized like that to me. But in the real world it would depend on a number of different contributing factors and then I'd probably alter the nature of the relationship such that I never have to completely trust them again.
How's that?
Reply
I like to pick on Hitler because he's such an easy example. He has been molded posthumously into a sort of stereotype for the concept of "Evil" and that makes him a handy point of reference. Hitler chose a path of genocide because he felt he was doing good for all mankind. If you share his beliefs, he's a hero. If you do not, he's a villain. Realistically that is very circumstantial and in this case the morality of it has been determined by the winners. I'm sure if you asked a Jewish person if Hitler deserved to die, they would feel quite certain that he should die and burn in hell or otherwise suffer vast eternal torment for the crimes he committed, which is why it's important that we look at this situation from a victim's standpoint.
If you were the only surviving member of a family that had been gassed by the Nazi's, would you honestly care whether "circumstance" gave him a rational justification or whether he was just a batshit whackjob? If someone calmly, rationally explained to you that he believed his path was a good move for all humanity, would you give a shit what he believed in? All you know is that your family has been callously murdered by this man for nothing more than the fact that he didn't like the way you were born.
But what if Hitler had survived, had a change of heart and suddenly became the next Ghandi? Would he still "deserve" to die? From the victim's standpoint, most likely yes he would, because there are crimes that have not been answered for. And that is part of the primary question. To what extent do we "need" punishment? Does it suit some sort of instinctive urge, or is it a legitimate concept?
Yes, realistically nobody would ever take such a change of heart seriously and you would always be looked upon with suspicion and contempt. And in the real world, you would be treated that way for good reason. And yes realistically a person who "got away with murder" might very well feel compelled to try and get away with it again. But we're not talking about that person. We're talking about the one who, perhaps unrealistically, actually feels remorse.
Reply
As for the Hitler question and in order to illustrate the point, the people whose lives he destroyed have every reason to hate him even if he had somehow escaped death and become an icon of peace and racial harmony forevermore. In order to preserve order he'd still need to die because by the end of the war he existed both as a person and as you said a symbol of evil. But I don't think punishment really serves any "instinctual urge" unless you make a convincing argument for its existence as a by product of anger. But I think in reality its a legal construct. So it exists only to create order and hierarchy. Offenses are really just perceived violations of power structures. Technically you can legally kill someone like in excecution. But if someone just murders someone else the idea is that they feel their power or worth is sufficient to take another's life. To reestablish order you must punish the usurper. That's I think why crimes against minorities don't get prosecuted or even investigated as much as those against white men because there's less perceived violation of the hierarchy.
So our instinct may not to be to punish, but we do it because we want to maintain our position and are afraid of future offenses. So in your perfect situation I'd forgive them but I wouldn't forget. Unless they were a fringe person in which case I'd just shoot them right then and there.
Reply
The circumstance can have an impact on how badly we react to a situation, but rarely will it resolve a situation.
A man beats you severely with a crowbar, and now you're paralyzed for life from the neck down. In one situation, the man is some crazy asshole who wanted your wallet. As the victim, you are totally justified in hating this person.
In another situation, the man did it because if he hadn't, you'd have been killed by someone else. Technically he just saved your life. Learning that may make it easier to forgive the man in the longrun, but you're still going to be paralyzed for life. You'll still be hurt and you'll still feel victimized. The circumstance won't magically make you totally okay with what happened. There will still be lingering anger, and a lesser person might even still want to make that man suffer in return.
So what I'm saying is, do you, as that victimized person, think you might ever be able to just let go of your anger and say "all is completely forgiven" and mean it? Do we, as human beings even possess the capability to fully detach ourselves from something like that?
It's kind of like that old teaching where Jesus was said to have taught that we should "turn the other cheek" regardless of what is done to us. I am mostly curious if we, as a species, will ever possess the capability to do so.
Reply
The "turning the other cheek" thing is actually a modern misinterpretation. What he was talking about was a specific act of civil disobedience. Roman soldiers when they did hit Jews or natives or whoever it was usually backhanded them. The reason they did this was because when they were given their post they themseles would be ceremonially slapped accross the face, but with the palm of the hand, not the back. So slapping with the palm carried a cultural connotation of equality. Thus when Jesus said "turn the other cheek" he didn't mean, "forgive" he meant, "stand your ground and demand equality."
If we're speaking from a behavioral sense I'm pretty sure I can safely say we do not have the capacity to forgive. If you get hurt by something you develop an aversion to it. Best example is food allergies. If something makes you sick enough times you start to develop a distaste for it.
The victim will remain victimized as you say, but i do think that circumstances mitigate resocialization. Even in the case of the victim. So you have a natural aversion thing and the fact that the damage is irreversible, but unless you adhere to the belief that humans are morally aligned you can't viably not at least partially excuse an offense provided there is real and clear remorse. The problem I have with your example of crowbar man is that its a question also of agency. If some guy gave me the option of paralysis or a battle that would probably result in my death knowing me I'd choose the battle and being robbed of that choice would probably anger me more than the paralysis thus shifting the question of morality.
I've lost friends on things like that though so experientially I have to say people are not forgiving.
Reply
Seeing the way people think and react to a given situation was the entire point of the original question.
Likewise, I think you are adding unnecessary complexity to a simple question, which makes it more and more difficult to answer with each new level we add to it.
In the case of Jesus, it hardly matters that the example was a common misinterpretation, as it was the misinterpretation that I am intentionally making comparisons to. Sure, it may be entirely historically wrong, but it still makes me think.
Reply
Leave a comment