Tagged: “Enright Forgiveness Process Model”

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.

If forgiveness, as you say, is for the other person who acted badly, what can we do to enlighten others about the true nature of forgiveness?  It seems to me that most people would fail a test if I asked, “What is forgiving on its highest level?”  When I do that, most say it is getting rid of anger or just moving on with one’s life.

We need more opportunities to discuss forgiveness with people.  I agree with you regarding the misunderstanding of what forgiveness is by many people.  In my experience, people use the word “forgiveness,” but never delve deeply into its meaning.  The self-help book, The Forgiving Life, discusses forgiving as love and might prove helpful in deepening the conversation about forgiveness.

Some philosophies emphasize the overcoming of the passions.  So, for example, if I go from anger to a neutral emotional stance, then I have conquered the emotion of anger, and it will not hurt me.  How is forgiveness different from this?

Forgiveness, while also focusing on the diminishing of anger, does so for a very different reason than what you describe above.  In genuine forgiveness, the forgiver reduces anger for the sake of the one who acted unjustly so that this person is not harmed.  Even more deeply than this, the forgiver strives, as an important endpoint of forgiveness on its highest level, to offer love (agape love) toward the other.  Agape is a special kind of love that is in service to others, even when it is very challenging or even painful to do so.  This is done for the other.  So, I hope you see that conquering anger for the sake of oneself is not the same as true forgiveness in its essence and on its highest level.

I am not so much furious with the individual who treated me unfairly as I am hurt. Does this mean I don’t have to forgive because I’m not angry?

One reason why we forgive is that psychological damage from long-standing anger is beginning to affect us. As a second reason why we forgive, we do so for the benefit of the other person or to give that person another chance. As a third reason, forgiveness is a moral virtue, and we do this to show respect and even love to the other. You can forgive for points 2 and 3 above.  Furthermore, unaddressed hurt can slowly lead to anger which can turn to resentment or even hatred. As a result, you can be stopping the possible emergence of this anger from happening as you forgive.