To Forgive--Or Not?

Poststructural Pub
1

Well, here we are, Lent’s upon us and the topic of forgiveness seems particularly relevant. Should the Christ have forgiven those who crucified him? Should Democrats forgive Nader for running again? Should we forgive one another–and does that depend on circumstances?

It so happens that there’s a new book out on the subject and I have a link for a review article. But first a teaser:

Taming the Vindictive Passions

Getting Even: Forgiveness and Its Limits. By Jeffrie G. Murphy. Oxford University Press. 152 pp. $21.

Reviewed by Daniel P. Moloney

In 1995, at ceremonies marking the fiftieth anniversary of the end of the Second World War and the liberation of Auschwitz, Elie Wiesel made the following prayer: “God of forgiveness, do not forgive those who created this place. God of mercy, have no mercy on those who killed here Jewish children.” Such a prayer makes many people uncomfortable and provokes some thorny theoretical and practical questions: Are there any unforgivable acts? Isn’t there some point after which Germany and the German people can be forgiven? Is hate ever a virtue?

The tensions between justice and compassion, forgiveness and order provide deep conceptual puzzles of the sort that analytic philosophers usually like to tackle, though surprisingly few do so in any depth. Fortunately, among those few is Jeffrie G. Murphy, Regents Professor of Law and Philosophy at Arizona State University, whose Getting Even: Forgiveness and Its Limits is a well-written and accessible yet deeply serious examination of the costs of forgiveness and the dangers of cheap grace.

Murphy began his career in philosophy of law as a leading defender of retribution as the primary justification for criminal punishment, and he still retains a tough-minded appreciation for the retributive idea and its supporting emotions of anger, vindictiveness, and resentment. But in 1988, Murphy coauthored a book with Jean Hampton, Forgiveness and Mercy, and it seems to have marked a turning point in his thinking and career.

Now the link:

http://print.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0402/reviews/moloney.html

The second half of the article talks a good deal about Christianity and forgiveness. To be honest, I have problems with a lot of the stuff that’s written in this article. The author of the book is an analytic philosopher, so you wouldn’t want to take his views very seriously, but it’s a good way to start a discussion.

I have to apologize in advance to everyone. In spite of my best efforts I seem to be running low on thought (or otherwise) provoking material, so I really can’t say when my next OT post will be. But I’ll keep trying.

And finally, a bonus link for those who have made it this far:

http://print.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0402/articles/miller.html

The article is “Alone in the Academy.”

edited apropos nothing in particular:

some of this pics make great backgrounds; I’m gonna try this one out

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/

2

I would like to add the implied question:

Should we forgive elendil for yet another OT post?

…or not?


:wink:

3

“For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk?” Mat. 9:5




:smiley:

4

Why not make it a poll and let us vote?

5

I don’t know where I found it but I’ve carried the quote below in my wallet for about 2 years.

"The following prayer was found scrawled on a piece of wrapping paper in the Ravensbruck concentration camp:

‘Lord, remember not only the men and women of good will, but all those of ill will. Do not only remember all the suffering they have subjected us to. Remember the fruits we have brought forth thanks to this suffering - our comradship, our loyalty, our courage and generosity, the greatness of heart that all this inspired. And when they come to justice, let all these fruits which we have borne be their judgement and their forgiveness.’"

I’m not sure if this was actually found as presented but it speaks to me. To forgive thoughtlessly, without thought, and not to forgive at all only keeps up trapped, continuiing the injury and the trap begun by others.

hey and I don’t even claim to be Christian anymore even though I doubt I will ever completely escape the religion of my childhood. I try to take what works and let the rest go.

y’all take care

6

edited to remove Hazmat.


Lord, remember not only the men and women of good will, but all those of ill will. Do not only remember all the suffering they have subjected us to. Remember the fruits we have brought forth thanks to this suffering - our comradship, our loyalty, our courage and generosity, the greatness of heart that all this inspired. And when they come to justice, let all these fruits which we have borne be their judgement and their forgiveness.'"

This is pretty typical of the sentiment that is portrayed as Christian. I think the problem many of us have with it–and which of us hasn’t at some time wished that we could feel that way?–is when we think of the person who has, for example, subjected a child to a lonely, shameful and painful death–and rejoices in his deed. Do we forgive? Does God forgive?

7

I’ve maxed out on OT stuff, designated HAZMAT or not. I wish that you elendil, Jim Stone, and a few others would decide just not to start threads for a while. Or limit yourself to one a month; or even one a week would be an improvement. I post as enthusiastically to OT threads as the next guy, so that you will understand that this is not a reflection on quality or on interest, but on quantity.

8

Perhaps you’re right. This started out to be theoretical, but then became personal, which isn’t really my usual style. If anyone wants to shut this down, I have no problem with that.

9

I was not reacting to this thread or your last post in particular. Also, I am not for shutting things down nor do I want to be the one telling people what to post or not. I feel better already just having gotten it off my chest. :slight_smile:

10

Well, I just bought a hardbound version of “Young Men in Spats” (very cheap at Amazon, like 11 bucks or so) and I’ve been reading a story per night. I’m up to “Trouble Down At Tudsleigh”–one of my favorites. I’ve already practiced my recorder tonight, so maybe I’ll go read that rather than think about forgiveness anymore. :laughing:

11

Well, now you’ve shamed me into posting something on-off-topic. I don’t think I’ll care to explain further though. :wink:

  1. Forgiveness, like guilt, is something that is difficult to transfer from a personal, individual level to a public, community level, conceptually and practically.

  2. Victim and perpetrator are linked in a cycle that can be broken only by forgiveness. Forgiveness benefits the the forgiver as much as the forgiven.

12

Well said Bloomfield.

jim d

13

Victim and perpetrator are linked in a cycle that can be broken only by forgiveness. Forgiveness benefits the the forgiver as much as the forgiven.

It’s easy enough to imagine a situation to fit your words, but in the case of the predatory person I don’t see how the cycle has been broken. Doesn’t true forgiveness imply true repentance? Certainly, there can be an intent to forgive before repentance is manifested, even an offer of forgiveness to move the offender to repent and accept forgiveness, to be reconciled, but absent some sort of reciprocity it seems the forgiver’s hands are tied. Can forgiveness be truly given if it’s not accepted?

I have a specific situation in mind. No physical violence involved or anything like that, but a series of felonies of a fraudulent nature committed against a person who is close to me by a relative. Now, there’s really no question of anger at this stage, not even outrage. Forgiveness would be freely given. But there appears to be an underlying malevolence involved that no amount of proferred forgiveness could erase.

What can forgiveness mean in this case? Certainly, there is no question of seeking revenge–my friend has declined to even report the fraud to the authorities. And yet one wonders whether that would have been the proper course, to turn the offender in as a matter of justice to other potential victims rather than out of a desire to avenge oneself.

Perhaps this is semantic, but isn’t there a difference between forgoing vengeance or demanding justice–and forgiving? For forgiveness to “take effect,” could it be that it must be accepted?

Of course, here we’re speaking of largely personal matters. On the societal level I firmly believe that justice must be enforced. Remorse may be taken into account, but only within defined limits. That’s my view.

I’m rereading my old ethics book, but I haven’t gotten to forgiveness yet.

Ha! But “Trouble Down At Tudsleigh” was as funny as I remembered it.

14

Shouldn’t this be a poll?

15

some of this pics make great backgrounds; I’m gonna try this one out > http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/

Elendil: I’ve been using these pics as wallpaper for years! Great stuff. Always helps me keeps things in perspective, and maintain a sense of wonder at our incredible universe. I’m 45 years young! :smiley:

16

Check this one out, too:

http://vestige.lmsal.com/TRACE/POD/TRACEpod.html

17

Aristotle said that philosophy begins with wonder. These pics seem to be wonder inducing. It does seem to me that the greatest scientists do retain that sense of wonder, that it is the beauty in what they see (whether literally or otherwise) that is a constant spur for them.

I did a little reading in my ethics text, and it seems that part of my problem is semantic. (I mean my problem re forgiveness–other problems perhaps can be dealt in another, OT, thread.)
It appears to me that common usage refers to forgiveness largely from the standpoint of the person who was wronged, and in that sense refers to their willingness to forgo legitimate justice or illegitimate revenge. So those people are willing to forgive. Yet, from the standpoint of the person who commits the wrong, it seems to me that they aren’t really forgiven until they accept the forgiveness, thus ratifying the offer of forgiveness.

Speaking again of forgiveness, here’s a link to a review of the Gibson movie. The reviews I’ve been seeing seem to run the gamut of reactions. Some claim its sadistic in its single minded focus on violence and cruelty. Others claim that, no, the meaning of it all does come through–which is the forgiveness that we all need and receive. I’ll give a little teaser, then give the link.

Gibson made dramatic choices regarding Pilate that not everyone will find satisfactory. But I did not take the sympathetic portrayal of Pilate to mitigate his guilt. I took its pedagogic purpose to be to invite us to imagine that the worst evil ever could have been committed by a man who seems like a nice guy. To have sympathy for someone is to imagine ourselves in his place. That is what we are meant to do here. We are nice people. Could we have done something like this? Yes. We did. To make Pilate an ogre would be to defeat this point entirely. Should Pilate be forgiven, whatever his motives? Should the Jewish leaders? Should we? That is not a question that I can answer. But it may be worth noting?it is not the least significant comment in the movie?that Jesus Christ asks His Father to forgive His killers.

http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.asp?ref=/ponnuru/ponnuru200402201151.asp

This review deals with the anti-semitic angle, as well.

18

“Man is a religious animal. He is the only religious animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion –- several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat, if his theology isn’t straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother’s path to happiness and heaven.”
-Mark Twain in Letters from the Earth

Of course we forgive you. “Go and sin no more.”

19

A lot depends on your understanding of the world and the issue of evil. For example, the Buddhist perspective is that the core drive of all sentient beings is to be happy and the core problem is that we all go about it the wrong way, through the attempted solidification and aggrandizement of self rather than seeing that the so-called “self” is actually an illusion. In other words, from this point of view, evil is demoted to the rather unglamorous position of being extreme ignorance inasmuch as an evil person tries to gain happiness by trying to harm others and in the process creates long term causes that will bring great suffering on his or herself.
So, all sentient beings, great and small, caught up in the welter of killing, birth, old age, and death suffer and all merit compassion. So, one’s aspiration might be:

May all sentient beings enjoy happiness and the root of happiness;
May they be free from suffering and the root of suffering;
May they not be separated from the great happiness devoid of suffering;
May they dwell in the great equanimity free from passion, aggression, and prejudice.

After all, what good is it to me or anyone else if Hitler or Stalin or Judas or Jeffrey Dahmer burns in the fires of hell for ever? Why should anyone suffer?
May this be of benefit.

20

No need to go to the East for such views. Plato certainly held the same view, that evil is caused by ignorance, and no doubt it is in many cases–in various forms.

The orthodox Christian view is that evil is “non-being,” or rather a “lack” or deprivation of a proper degree of being. For those born with a birth defect, say, that would be a physical evil and would carry no moral imputation. On the other hand, there are those who, whether through ignorance or deliberate choice, choose evil, and in those cases there may be varying degrees of moral responsibility. Obviously, ignorance in a rational animal, such as man, is an evil, i.e., a lack of a quality that should be present. Deliberate choices of evil also represent a lack of a proper good in a man: virtue, which would lead a man, in conjunction with knowledge, to make a proper choice.

Too, for the orthodox Christian, as with Aristotle, all men by nature desire the good. That means that no choice is made except it be presented to a person as in some way good–no matter how perverted that view of the matter may be. Again, there is the issue of moral responsibility in varying degrees: to what degree is one responsible for acquiring such a perverted view as that, for example, genocide is an acceptable solution for a complex conflict among human beings.