Tagged: “family”

How is forgiveness related to love?

Forgiveness is being good to those who are not good to you.  Love, particularly the most difficult form of love, what the Greeks call agape, is to be good to those who are in need of your services, even when it is difficult to offer this love.  Forgiveness is one expression of agape.  Forgiveness is a specific form of agape in that forgiving takes place specifically in the context of another person being unjust, even cruel, to the forgiver.

There are other examples of agape that do not include forgiveness.  For example, a mother who is up all night with a sick child is showing agape because this is difficult and necessary and she does so out of goodness for her child.  Forgiveness can occur exclusively in the human heart as the forgiver sees the hurtful other as possessing inherent worth and commits to the betterment of the other.  In agape, there is the action within the human heart and mind, but in addition, there is the action of deliberately assisting people in need.

“Forgiveness Is the Release of Deep Anger:” Is This True?

I recently read an article in which the author started the essay by defining forgiving as the release of deep anger.

In fact, there is a consensus building that forgiveness amounts to getting rid of a negative emotion such as anger and resentment. I did a Google search using only the word “forgiveness.” On the first two pages, I found the following definitions of what the authors reported forgiveness to be:

Forgiveness (supposedly) is:

• letting go of resentment and thoughts of revenge;
• the release of resentment or anger;
• a conscious and deliberate decision to release feelings of resentment or vengeance toward a person who acted unjustly;
• letting go of anger;
• letting go of negative feelings such as vengefulness.

I think you get the idea. The consensus is that forgiveness focuses on getting rid of persistent and deep anger. Synonyms for this are resentment and vengefulness. Readers not deeply familiar with the philosophy of forgiveness may simply accept this as true. Yet, this attempted and consensual definition cannot possibly be true for the following reasons:

1.  A person can reduce resentment and still dismiss the other person as not worth one’s time;
2.  Reducing resentment itself is not a moral virtue. This might happen because the “forgiver” wants to be happy and so there is no goodness toward the other, which is part of the definition   of a moral virtue;
3.  There is no specific difference between forgiveness and tolerance. I can get rid of resentment by trying to tolerate the other. My putting up with the other as a person is not a moral virtue;
4.  Forgiveness, if we take these definitions seriously, is devoid of love. It is not that one has to resist love. Yet, one can be completely unaware of love as the essence of forgiveness while  holding to the consensual definition. 
5.  A central goal of forgiveness is lost. Off the radar by the consensual definition is the motivation to assist the other to grow as a person. After all, why even bother with the other if I can   finally rid myself of annoying resentment.  
   

The statement “forgiveness is ridding the self of resentment or vengefulness” is reductionistic and therefore potentially dangerous. It is dangerous in a philosophical and a psychological sense. The philosophical danger is in never going deeply enough to understand the beauty of forgiveness in its essence as a moral virtue of at least trying to offer love to those who did not love you. The psychological danger is that Forgiveness Therapy will be incomplete as the client keeps the focus on the self, trying to rid the self of negatives. Yet, the paradox of Forgiveness Therapy is the stepping outside of the self, to reach out to the other, and in this giving is psychological healing for the client. It is time to challenge the consensus.

Robert

In your experience, when do children begin to truly forgive parents who have behaved very badly?

In my experience, people tend to start forgiving parents once the children are emerging into adulthood and are beginning to leave home or have left home. Before that, the child is both very dependent on the parents for basic needs and, when young, does not necessarily have the cognitive insight regarding how deeply unjust the parental behavior is. The young adult can be shocked at the depth of anger and at the seriousness of the parental injustice when looking back. Because of this, the struggle to forgive can take time, but definitely is well worth it. The forgiving might lead to a genuine reconciliation with the parent, if the parent also wishes to reconcile, which, in my experience, most parents want.

Can witnesses to abuse forgive the abuser even though the witnesses were not the ones harmed? For example, suppose one child is scapegoated in the family. Could a sibling, now an adult, who did not experience the parental wrath forgive the parents?

Yes, the adult child who was not abused can feel free to forgive the parent for abusing the adult child’s sibling. Trudy Govier, a philosopher in Canada, refers to this as secondary forgiveness. The abused child, who wishes to forgive, would be engaging in primary forgiveness.

I so do not want to admit this, but I have no trust at all for my ex-partner. She is constantly accusing me of things I have not done. She wants to reconcile. Can there be genuine reconciliation without trust?

Genuine reconciliation requires trust by both people. Yet, that trust can come slowly, taking time. So, you can get together even without full trust, but the true reconciliation will require that trust to eventually be established. I recently did a blog on Psychology Today’s website centered on this question of reconciling with an ex-partner. You can find that essay here: 6 Things to Consider Before Reconciling with an Ex.