Tagged: “Dr. Robert Enright”
Thank you for answering my earlier question about the advantages of forgiveness. It seems to me that if a person forgives to feel better, that is just a selfish move. It is all about “me.” So, I still am skeptical.
There is a difference between a selfish act and a self-serving act. A selfish act tends to ignore others’ legitimate needs. For example, Person A takes Person B’s money so that Person A can gamble with it. This deprives Person B of those funds that rightfully belong to Person B. In contrast, suppose Person A has to break a date with Person B because Person A hurt his knee and has to go to an Urgent Care facility for treatment. This is not selfish, but a healthy self-serving activity because of the damaged knee. There is no intention of depriving anyone, as was the case with our gambling example.
Forgiving to rid the self of excessive anger or depression is not depriving others of anything. It is self-serving because of the hurting heart that needs rehabilitation. Forgiving for this reason is not necessarily the exclusive reason people use when forgiving, but sometimes it is the place people start because they are so hurting inside. Forgiveness is good medicine for such hurts and so is not selfish in this context.
For additional information, see: How Forgiveness Can Change Your Life.
There is so much talk about forgiveness these days. I can’t see the advantages to forgiving. Can you convince me otherwise?
Advantages to forgiveness:
- Social scientific experiments since 1993 have shown that as people take the time to forgive, they can increase in hope and self-esteem and decrease in anger, anxiety, and depression.
- Forgiveness might get the attention of the one who did wrong, leading to that person’s seeking forgiveness.
- Forgiving and seeking forgiveness can open the door to a genuine reconciliation.
- As a moral virtue, forgiveness is good in and of itself because it is the offer of goodness. This goodness is not made less good if the other rejects that offer of forgiveness.
- Forgiveness puts more love in the world.
So, what do you think? Do you see advantages to forgiveness or do you remain skeptical?
For additional information, see: Why forgiveness is the right thing to do physically, spiritually and socially.
I was very upset with my boyfriend. He came to me to ask forgiveness, but I could tell that he was doing this only because I was upset. His overture of seeking forgiveness did not seem genuine to me at all. Under this kind of circumstance, should I have confronted him about his insincerity or should I have just accepted his superficial request and let it go?
It seems in this circumstance that you would be better off talking with him about your impression of his insincerity. This does not mean that you do so right then, when you were very upset. His lack of sincerity could be another event in which you need to forgive him. Your first working on forgiveness may make your conversation about his insincerity more civil and more productive. If you confronted him when you were very upset, without your first starting the forgiveness process, then this possibly could deepen the original argument.
For additional information, see: 5 Ways to Apologize to Someone You Love
Would you say that someone truly has forgiven another if the one who forgives refuses to reconcile with the other person?
The answer depends on the person’s reason for not reconciling. If the one who offended is sorry for the wrongdoing and is making sincere attempts to change, then this can make reconciliation a definite possibility. If the forgiver refuses to even consider reconciliation at this point, and if the forgiver still is showing deep anger, then it is possible that the forgiveness is either at a very early stage or is not genuine. On the other hand, if the one who engaged in the wrongdoing remains unrepentant and refuses to change the behavior, the forgiver still can forgiver deeply from the heart and not reconcile because it could be unhealthy or even dangerous, depending on how hurtful the injustice is.
For additional information see: Learning to Forgive Others.
Plato reminds us in The Republic that justice is giving people what is deserved. This can include both rewards and punishments. If Person A offers $100 to Person B for building a table, the receipt of the $100 by Person B upon the successful completion of the table is fair or just. If Person C is guilty of a traffic violation and the rules of the city require any violator of this kind to be fined $100, then it is fair or just if Person C gives up $100.
Social justice, while not always defined in the same way by all advocates of this approach, basically centers on equality of outcome. For example, suppose a pizza establishment will not deliver in a neighborhood in which there is high crime and two of their delivery people were killed trying to make deliveries there in the past year.
Because innocent people in that neighborhood are not treated the same as people in safer neighborhoods, this may be considered unjust by social justice standards. Why? It is because the innocent need an equal outcome, successful delivery of pizzas, compared to those in safer neighborhoods. That the risk for the deliverers is not deserved is not an issue here. For the classical sense of justice, what do the deliverers deserve? They deserve to be safe in terms of laws of probability for being safe. For the new social sense of justice, what do the deliverers deserve? Actually, the deliverers are not the focus now. The focus is on those who have no equality of ordering pizzas. There is a decided shift to one particular group and the emphasis on equality of outcome for them.
Now we are ready to show the difference between social justice for the imprisoned and forgiveness interventions for them. In social justice and in forgiveness, we both might focus, for example, on the childhood of Person D, who was abused by his father and now Person D has abused three children, for which he is arrested. Social justice, in focusing on his childhood, might have people see that Person D is not fully to blame for his actions, but instead his unfortunate background must mitigate the length of his sentence so that he is not unequally behind bars compared to others who were not abused and are not behind bars. The quest in this particular case is to alter the sentence and thus the time served.
For our forgiveness program, as we, too, focus on Person D’s horrendously unjust childhood, we try to help Person D, if he chooses, to forgive his father for his deep injustices. This process of forgiveness might reduce Person D’s rage and thus reduce his motivation to hurt others in the future. We do not suggest that justice now be altered. We focus on inner healing and not on altering the time he is to serve in prison. Justice in its classical sense is served in the forgiveness programs, while that classical sense of justice is not served when social justice is considered, at least in the example given here.
There is a substantial difference between forgiveness as a rehabilitation strategy for those in prison and the call to alter the sentence in social justice. If there is a call to reduce sentences without the concomitant attempt to eliminate rage, one has to wonder how just this solution is. Perhaps it is time to fold forgiveness interventions into the quest for social justice so that these work together. When a reduced sentence is going to occur, then it seems wise that the rage within first is reduced.