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.
