Tagged: “Forgiveness Process”
I have been reading a lot about the idea that “forgiveness is for you” (the injured person), not for the one who behaved badly. Do you agree?
No, I do not agree with this idea. If forgiveness is a moral virtue, then it concerns goodness toward others, particularly the one who was unjust in the case of forgiveness. In fact, I have written an essay for Psychology Today about this very issue here:
Is forgiving others basically a decision, such as a decision to be kind to the one who was unfair?
Decisions are part of forgiveness, but not the entire essence of forgiving. As a moral virtue, forgiveness includes thinking (a decision is a thought), feelings, motivation, and actions toward the one who was unjust. Here is an analogy to make it clearer. Suppose you decided to work in a soup kitchen to help people without homes. Your decision was made as you sat on our sofa watching television. If you do not follow through on that decision in your motivation to get up off the sofa at some point and behaviorally go to the soup kitchen, would you say that your decision alone was sufficient regarding assisting people without homes? Decisions need to be broadened with feelings about going forward, the motivation to do so, and the action consistent with all of this.
Isn’t forgiveness different for all who experience it? After all, we are all unique.
Your idea of complete differences for each person who forgives is a philosophy of relativism. Here is a different perspective for your consideration: Aristotle distinguishes between the Essence and the Existence of different phenomena. Essence is the objective reality of what something is. All chairs, for example, share certain commonalities that differ from those of sofas or beds. Existence is how an Essence might be experienced differently. There are many different chair designs, for example, but they all still share a common Essence. It is the same with forgiveness. There is an objective reality across time, cultures, and persons that represents reality. Forgiveness is the motivation, affect, cognition, and behavior to be merciful to those who have been unfair to us. This can be expressed differently by different people and in different cultures, but this does not diminish what forgiveness is in its Essence. If forgiveness were completely different for each person, there could be no science of forgiveness, for example, because we could not devise measures of forgiveness or correlate forgiveness with such interesting variables as hope, self-esteem, and depression. Even in the interpersonal realm, how could we talk about forgiveness with one another if we keep meaning something different from each other?
If those who offend others have experienced a lot of pain in their lives, do you think they would be more open to accepting the offended person’s overture of forgiving than, say, others who have rarely experienced pain in their lives?
Yes, you are making a good point, particularly if the people are aware of the pain and its effects on them. In some cases, people who have experienced much pain are unaware of it and can end up displacing the anger onto others. Once the psychological defense of denial becomes conscious, it is usually less likely that they will continue the hurtful displacement of their anger onto others. Their past pain from others may make them more sensitive to the pain in others, including those whom they may have hurt.
My friend keeps saying, “I have forgiven because I was not hurt by what he did.” Is this forgiveness?
Forgiveness is not the experience of never being hurt by the other’s unjust actions. Yet, a person can forgive even without experiencing deep hurt. Forgiveness for small things entails seeing the other as a worthwhile human being despite the annoyance. Forgiveness is to separate the worth of the other from the offense. You are not excusing the injustice. Instead, you are broadening your view of who the other person is, despite the annoyance.
