Archive for September, 2024
How long should I keep forgiving when my boyfriend never apologizes? Do I just stop the process of forgiving until he shapes up?
Your forgiving is a free-will choice that can be offered unconditionally. In other words, you can forgive regardless of your boyfriend’s response. This, at least, will help you to become free of resentment caused by his unfair actions. You certainly can wait to reconcile until he shows remorse (inner sorrow) and repentance (words expressing his sorrow with an intention to change).
What do you think of starting a norm of forgiveness in businesses? Colleagues can get angry with each other, creating a toxic environment in the workplace. Do you think planting such a norm of forgiveness would be worthwhile in organizations?
Yes, this is an important idea, and we have a research study showing the benefits of forgiveness within the workplace. Here is a reference to this article:
Zhao, C., Enright, R.D., & Klatt, J. (2017). Forgiveness education in the workplace: A new strategy for the management of anger. London Journal of Research in Humanities and Social Sciences, 17, 11-24.
I am new to forgiveness. I am having trouble forgiving my spouse for a serious injustice. Help!
You might try these two strategies first: a) start by forgiving someone else who has hurt you for a lesser offense. This will give you practice on the forgiveness pathway; b) then try forgiving your spouse for a lesser offense. With this kind of practice in forgiving, you are building up what I call your forgiveness muscles for the harder task of forgiving your spouse for what you call the serious injustice.
Suppose three other people walk into a bar. The first person says, “I have tried and tried to love the one who hurt me, but I just cannot do it.” The second one says, “I, too, have tried to love the one who hurt me, but all I can offer is respect, including respectful conversations.” The third one says, “It took me a long time to develop a little love in my heart for the one who hurt me, but it is there.” Would you say that only the third person is forgiving?
No, I would not say that for this reason: To love (in the sense of agape or trying to help the other despite its challenges) is the Essence of what forgiveness is. We do not have to continually be on this high level to be forgiving. We can still hold this up as our goal, but it is hard to reach the goal. Here is an analogy to make this clearer: If the three people who walked into the bar are now striving to be physically fit, and if the first one works out three times a week and can only do 10 push-ups at a time, wouldn’t you agree that this person is engaging in physical fitness? The person has not reached a high level of fitness yet, but there is exercise toward improvement. The second one can do 20 push-ups, and the goal is 50. Would you not agree that this person, too, is engaged in physical fitness? The third person now can run a marathon and do 50 push-ups in a row. Just because this third person is more physically fit than the others does not mean that the others are not practicing physical fitness. The Essence of something is a goal and not necessarily a reality for everyone. It is the knowledge of what the Essence is and striving for it that is important. So, in summary, all three of the people who walk into the bar are practicing forgiveness.
Suppose three philosophers walk into a bar. One says, “Forgiveness is transcending the passions.” The second one says, “Forgiveness is moving on without the injustice affecting the person.” The third one says, “Forgiveness on its highest level is offering agape love to the one who acted unjustly.” Who is to say which of these philosophers is correct?
I suggest that you can argue against the first two philosophers this way: First, if all we do is transcend the passions, what then keeps the forgiver from being neutral toward the other person, ignoring this person? This is a passive dismissal of the other and so this philosopher will have to re-define forgiveness away from its quality as a moral virtue. I say that because there is no goodness toward the other. Second, if all we do is move on without anger, how does this show any kind of goodness toward the offending person? Where is the respect or the kindness or the generosity? The other person is cut out of the equation. Again, we would have to ask what forgiveness is in this case. Is it some kind of self-help strategy, and if so, what is it? Only the third philosopher has a genuine concern for the other person, and so is preserving the quality of forgiving as a moral virtue. When it is time for a toast in this bar, it is my hope that the other two toast to the wisdom of the third philosopher.
