Ask Dr. Forgiveness
The eighth of 15 criticisms I see about forgiveness is this: To forgive is to cancel the debt the other owes you and so you never get back what is due.
When you forgive, as stated several times now, you do not cancel justice. Yes, you can cancel any obligation the other person has in helping to heal your wounds, but even here your forgiving, to be more complete, involves kindness and even love (on its highest level) which goes way beyond canceling the other’s obligation to help you to heal.
The ninth of 15 criticisms I see about forgiveness is this: Forgiving others lowers your self-esteem as you focus more on those who did wrong than on healing yourself.
There is a paradox of forgiving in that as you reach out to the others with forgiveness, offering a second chance as well as kindness and love, it is you, the giver, who heals. Scientific studies have demonstrated the validity of this paradox.
The tenth of 15 criticisms I see about forgiveness is this: When you proclaim your forgiveness, it only serves to make the one who offended you feel guilty.
To forgive offers a lot more consequences than just having the offending person feel guilty. As we saw in our point 9, forgiving can heal you, the forgiver, psychologically. Your forgiving can help to restore a relationship, if the other is amenable to this. Yes, your proclamation of forgiving may make the other feel guilty and this is a very good thing if the other is guilty of injustice. The feeling of guilt may aid the person in repenting and therefore changing unjust behavior.
The eleventh of 15 criticisms that I so characteristically see on-line is this: The self-help advice suggests that forgiving is a quick-fix, accomplished so quickly as to be a superficial and misguided way of healing from trauma.
Research consistently shows that to forgive a person for a very deep injustice that has resulted in the effects of trauma takes patience, struggle, and time. This science shows that to forgive a person for such deep injustices is definitely not a quick fix. The problem here is in the advice of quickness and not something inherent in forgiveness itself.
The twelfth of 15 criticisms about forgiveness that I so frequently see is that it is impossible to even understand or define forgiveness because there are so many different definitions of it in the published literature.
This problem is not inherent in forgiveness itself, but instead is a problem with those who write about forgiveness without deeply understanding what it is. As the ancient Greeks, such as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, remind us, there is an objective essence (or an unchanging set of characteristics) which typifies each moral virtue. Forgiveness is what it is across historical time and across cultures and, yes, there can be individual and cultural variations in how this essence is expressed. Just because there is a ritual, for example, in Sierra Leone on the West Coast of Africa, in which a community gathers at night around a large bonfire as people forgive one another, does not mean that what forgiveness is there differs in essence from what forgiveness is in a one-on-one forgiveness therapy session in the United States. Those who think about and then write about forgiveness, according to Aristotle, can use their rational faculties to understand, even if imperfectly, what forgiveness is and is not. To forgive is to be good to those who are not good to the forgiver and this goodness includes the motivation to be good to the offending person, the cognitions of goodness toward the person, positive affect, and, when possible, positive behaviors toward that person.
