Misconceptions

Must the Other Apologize Prior to My Forgiving?

A person wrote to us recently to ask: Should I wait for the other person’s apology (repentance) before I forgive? Some philosophers such as Haber and Griswold argue that forgiveness is only legitimate if there first is an apology. And isn’t there a Bible verse saying that if your brother repents then you forgive him?

We are addressing the question here in the Blog (rather than in our Ask Dr. Forgiveness section) because of the lengthy reply and because we wish to give as many people as possible the chance to see and respond to the answer.

Some people reason that it is in the best interest of an unjustly-treated person to wait for an apology. Some reason that this is best even for forgiveness itself because it preserves the moral quality of forgiveness, by demanding something of the other, by trying to bring out the best in the offender.

While this latter point, waiting for the good of the other, is noble because the focus is on the betterment of that other person, I do not think that reason allows us to insist that this occur prior to our forgiving our offenders. I make three points in defense of unconditional forgiveness:

1. Forgiveness is a moral virtue and there is no other moral virtue in existence that requires a prior response from another person before one can exercise that virtue. For example, if you wish to be kind, does someone first have to do something before you engage in kindness? Does someone have to do something before you can exercise justice? No. So, why are we changing the rules of the moral virtues for this one virtue of forgiveness?

2. If our forgiving others is contingent on an apology (a prior response from another before we can act), then we are trapped in unforgiveness until the other acts. This would seem to violate the principle of justice: We cannot exercise a particular virtue, in this case forgiveness, even if we so choose. How fair is that?

3. You fall back to a supposed Biblical mandate in your defense of the conditional nature of forgiveness (the required apology). Of course, those who reject faith will have no interest in this third point (and I hope that my first two points are sufficient to convince them of the philosophical flaws in arguing for the necessity of repentance prior to forgiving). You refer to Luke 17:3, “”Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him.” Yet, this is not setting up a necessary condition for a person to forgive. Instead, it is setting up a sufficient condition for the forgiveness to occur. In other words, when you see your brother has repented, this is a morally adequate act for you to go ahead and forgive. Yet, there are other ways for a person to forgive, including the unconditional approach (no repentance has occurred). The context does not imply that one must–out of necessity–refrain from offering forgiveness until the other repents. This, in logic, is a confusion of necessary and sufficient conditions.

So, waiting for an apology is a moral good in only one sense: It challenges the other to change. I would like to clarify even this by making a distinction between internal and external aspects of forgiveness. It is not morally good to refrain from the inner work of forgiveness (struggling to see the inherent worth of your offender) prior to the apology/repentance. Why? Because goodness (in this case the moral virtue of forgiveness) is thwarted and cannot occur. It is only morally good if the verbal act of forgiveness (“I forgive you”) is delayed until the other changes (and in a genuine way) and at the same time is not delayed out of necessity.

On the other hand, unconditional forgiveness is morally good in at least three ways: 1) The one offended begins to see the inherent worth of the other as soon as the forgiver is ready; 2) unconditional forgiveness does not lead to the trap of unforgiveness based on another’s actions, and 3) the offer of forgiveness even verbally prior to the other’s change of heart may lead to such a change of heart. In other words, some people will repent when they experience the forgiver’s unconditional love. And even if they do not, forgiveness does not link automatically to reconciliation with the person. In other words, an unconditional act of forgiveness does not open the forgiver to further injustice.

Dr. Bob

The Five Myths of Forgiveness

Today, class, we will take an exam. It is a pop-quiz of sorts, to test your thinking about forgiveness, specifically with regard to what I am calling some of the “myths” of forgiveness.

See what you think.

1. Forgiveness is very much intrenched in popular culture right now, but the interest will fade, as all fads do. True or false?

Although interest in the topic of forgiveness may wax and wane through the generations and across cultures, forgiveness is timeless because, unfortunately, conflict and injustice are part of this world. As long as there are conflict and injustice, forgiveness will burn brightly.

2. For me to forgive, the other has to repent and apologize. True or false?

Although it surely is good when others repent and apologize, these are not necessary for you to forgive because forgiveness is a virtue and no other virtue requires a prior response from another person before you can forgive. Some say that the withholding of forgiveness until the other apologizes is a moral good because this then helps the offender to see the error of his/her ways and to make amends. Yet, no one who says this has convinced me that the reverse is not equally true: Forgive first and point out the other’s offense in the hope that he/she will respond to your offer of goodness and therefore repent.

3. It is better to stand up for justice than to forgive because justice will directly correct wrong. True or false?

Although the quest for justice is always good, this does not mean that we have to dichotomize justice and forgiveness and try only for one or the other. We can strive for justice and forgive as we do so. These two virtues are not mutually exclusive.

4. Once a person begins to show a pattern of devaluing forgiveness, it is likely that this will continue. True or false?

Although it is difficult to break habits, forgiveness education can and does change minds and hearts with regard to the topic. So often people reject forgiveness because they have been so very hurt in this world. Forgiveness acknowledges this pain and gently offers a way out of that pain. Never underestimate the power of genuine and effective pain relief.

5. Forgiveness is a good idea, but it is too hard. No one can truly accomplish it. True or false?

Because all of the other myths were false, by now I suspect that you said “false” to this one. My question, then, is this: Why is it false? One answer to consider: As we practice any virtue, we get more proficient at it. We need not reach perfection in any one virtue to be actually practicing it. We all practice all virtues in an imperfect way. The point is to try, and then as we try, we grow in proficiency in the practice of that virtue, including forgiveness.

R.E.

The Place for Guilt and Injustice

I have been perusing some of the forgiveness blogs on the Internet and there is one theme that comes up often: If we think of the world as having injustice and guilt, this blocks out love in our lives. As soon as we understand that there is no injustice, then we see that there is no guilt. As we see there is no guilt, we do not judge anyone guilty. As we do not judge anyone guilty, we do not judge. As we do not judge, we do not divide the world into the innocent and the guilty. As we do not divide the world this way, we eliminate conflict. As we eliminate conflict we are free to love.

Nope. This is too high a price to pay for inner peace. It is a false peace achieved by hiding under a bed of illusions.

Inner peace is not won through a lack of conflict, but instead by our response to the conflict itself. Inner peace is a steadfast will to love in the face of injustice and guilt and judgement and conflict in this world.

Otherwise, we have a situation as in the movie, The Time Machine. It is the year 802,701. The peaceful Eloi have all the peace they think they want, until the Morlocks choose some of them for slaughter. The Eloi, you see, have shut out of their minds that there is conflict so that they see nothing wrong with some of their brethren being slaughtered. It is the price they pay for a full stomach, to ignore injustice. In this Time Machine world, the Morlocks are not guilty. In this world, there is no judgment. In this world, the innocent are not divided from the guilty. In this world, there is no perceived conflict.

And there’s the rub. There is no perceived conflict when conflict is all around the Eloi. They do not have the courage to see it.

Love requires courage and so in the futuristic new age of the gentle Eloi, they talk of love but even their love is an illusion because ultimately they care little for their fellow man. It is inner peace they seek at all costs, including the abandonment of love while calling all of this love.

The Eloi are now all around us. Sad to say, but so too are the Morlocks. They are at the door even if the gentle Eloi fail to recognize them for who they are. And in the seeing, we can still love, but it will be a love that sets limits and strives for the betterment of all. Such striving involves much pain, which the Eloi have refused as part of their growth in love. As a result, they fail to grow in love.

R.E.

Who Has the Right to Forgive This?

Jerome Simpson is a professional football player for the Minnesota Vikings. He recently asked fans to forgive him for spending 15 days in jail on a drug-related charge.

He pleaded guilty on March 1 to a felony charge. Two pounds of marijuana were shipped to his Kentucky home in September when he was a member of the Cincinnati Bengals

“I’m not a drug dealer or anything,” he said. He has served his time.

So, do fans have the right to forgive him? After all, the fans had nothing to do with the purchase. They are not members of his immediate family who might be directly hurt by the incident. Can fans legitimately forgive him?

I think the answer is, “Yes” because fans put faith in athletic heroes and come to legitimately expect good conduct to go along with excellent athletic ability. Fans invest time and money in the athletes and teams and therefore have a right to resentment. They then have the right to offer or to withhold forgiveness.

In an earlier blog post (April 5, 2012) I made the point that it was not legitimate for a blogger to forgive the Chicago Cubs players for failing to win the 2003 National League Championship Series. So, what is the difference between the current call for forgiving an athlete and the previous caution not to do so?

The key to the answer is this: Was genuine injustice done in each case?

R.E.

Forgiveness Is Not a Gift We Give to Ourselves

In doing some blog searching today, I came across this quotation: “Forgiveness is not something good we give to the other person, but a gift we give to ourselves.” I have seen this numerous times in different places and it is not correct. Forgiveness has been seen as a moral virtue for thousands of years. Every moral virtue, without exception, is focused on giving goodness to others. Think about justice and kindness and generosity and love as just a handful of examples of moral virtues. When you are being fair, are you primarily being fair to yourself? Stopping at a stop light while you are driving a car is an example of being just or fair. Are you stopping your car for fairness to you or to the driver who is driving through the green light and could be injured by your lack of justice? When you are being kind, doesn’t there have to be another person to receive the kindness? That virtue is not exercised for the self. What about generosity? Don’t you have to reach out to another person to be generous? And love requires another to love. Yes, we should love ourselves, but in the context of extending love to others. We do not hold love tightly for the self.

The quotation above does not imply that one forgives for the self and for others, but exclusively for the self. The author of the quote unambiguously states that forgiveness “is not something good we give to the other person.” We supposedly hold it tightly for ourselves. How can this be a moral virtue if no other virtue you can name does likewise, save the goodness for self alone?

Either forgiveness is a moral virtue or it is not. If it is, then it’s goodness has to flow out from self to others for their good. A consequence of forgiving is stronger emotional health for the self, but this is a consequence and not an essence of what forgiveness is at its core.

The author of the quotation has confused the essence of what forgiveness is with one (and only one) consequence that happens (at least some of the time) when we forgive. Sometimes we feel better when we forgive. Scientific studies support this statement. We must be careful not to say then that forgiveness is—in its essence—a gift we give to ourselves.

R.E.