Do I have to be full-out committed to try forgiveness for it to be successful for me? In other words, what if I am only 50% committed to trying forgiveness. Will it still work for me?
Many people who have been deeply hurt by others start the forgiveness process with skepticism. They try forgiveness because they have tried so many other supposed remedies to emotional pain that have not worked for them. Even with this kind of skepticism, if a person understands forgiveness and takes the time to practice it, that commitment can grow in the person so that it strengthens as does one’s enthusiasm for persevering in the process.
For additional information, see: What is Forgiveness?
Yes, and I see this especially when the injustice is very grave, such as the murder of one’s family member. The anger can be so intense that the person refuses to forgive for this particular issue. This does not mean that the person is closed to forgiving all other people for other kinds of injustices. At the same time, a refusal to forgive today is not necessarily a person’s final word on the matter. In time, this person may decide to try forgiveness.
For additional information, see: Forgiveness Defined.
In your book, Forgiveness Is a Choice, you make a distinction between approaching the forgiveness process with “willingness” versus “willfulness.” You seem to favor “willingness.” Yet, to me “willfulness” shows me that I am in control of how I feel now, rather than my offender controlling me. Why do you discourage willfulness.”
I emphasize willingness over willfulness because we are not always in complete control of our emotions. For example, you cannot at this precise moment will yourself not to feel anger. You can distract yourself or engage in “self-talk” to reduce the anger, but you still are not in complete control of your emotions at a given time. Thus, I advocate being open to change, but not to grow discouraged if you still need to work on those emotions that need your attention, such as unhealthy anger or even hatred. Being willing to change is not the same as “willfulness.” The latter suggests that you can will a deliberate alteration now in your emotions. Willingness, on the other hand, while still focused on your free will to be rid of unhealthy emotions, does not expect instant change in these emotions.
For additional information, see: Learning to Forgive Others.
I can understand how forgiveness is part of philosophy and theology, but I am having a hard time seeing how forgiveness can be placed into the scientific arena. After all, this is a highly abstract concept. How can it be studied scientifically?
Forgiveness is not the only abstract concept studied scientifically. The theme of justice also is abstract and has been part of the scientific landscape since at least 1932 when Jean Piaget began his work on children’s and adolescents’ understanding of justice. Gratitude is another abstract construct that is studied in the social sciences. We can study forgiveness because it is possible to define forgiveness in such a way as to make it concretely measurable. For example, we have the Enright Forgiveness Inventory which assesses the degree to which participants forgive one other person who was unfair to them. We categorize forgiving in this scale into 6 dimensions: the degree to which the participant 1) harbors negative thoughts and 2) negative feelings, and 3) exhibits negative behaviors toward the unjustly acting person; the degree to which the participant shows 4) positive thoughts and 5) positive feelings, and 6) exhibits positive behaviors toward the unjustly acting person. We are able to get a score for each participant. Science shows that when people go through forgiveness intervention programs, then their forgiveness scores on this scale tend to increase. People with high scores on this scale tend to show better mental and physical health than people who have very low scores on this forgiveness scale.
For additional information, see: Forgiveness Research.
You keep calling forgiveness a “moral virtue” and then automatically conclude that it is good. I don’t see it that way. To me, forgiveness is an evolved biological survival mechanism to keep people from killing each other. In other words, your calling forgiveness a “moral virtue” is a cognitive illusion to make it sound more special than it actually is. If you see it as a biological advance along the evolutionary continuum, it seems then to reduce the high value you place on it. What do you think?
Let us suppose for a moment that you are correct. Even if you are correct, this does not mean that people **automatically** forgive as if this is some kind of an instinct. People still have to:
- cognitively understand that to forgive is to be good to those who are not good to them;
- decide to appropriate forgiveness, making it a choice, not an automatic response;
- struggle to forgive. It takes effort and even some pain to be good in this context;
- understand that there are no guarantees from the other that reconciliation will occur and occur well.
Do you see that to forgive still is something that is slowly formed within a person as good, comes out as a heroic choice, moves forward as kindness toward others, and is done even if it will not lead to others stopping their destructive behavior? If you see this, then what words other than “moral virtue” would you use? If this only is an evolved biological mechanism, then why do so many people not understand what forgiveness is and refuse to forgive? It seems to me that if forgiving were an evolved biological action, then we would see more people engaging in it and without such a struggle to complete it well.
For additional information, see: What is Forgveness?