Tagged: “Misconceptions”
I think some things are unforgivable, such as incest or the murder of one’s child. So, those advocating for forgiveness need to back off in such cases.
Let us discuss first the issue of “advocating for forgiveness.” People who are enthusiastic about forgiveness need to be careful not to put pressure on others to forgive. The decision to forgive needs to come from the one who was offended. Regarding the “unforgivable,” we need to clarify what forgiveness is. When we forgive, we are offering mercy to a person. The emphasis is on the offending person and not on the act itself. In other words, people do not forgive the “incest or the murder of one’s child.” A person forgives those who perpetrated the actions. Not everyone would choose to forgive the offender under these circumstances. Yet, there are people who have forgiven such offenders. An example of women forgiving the father or father-figure for incest is documented in a scientific study as follows:
Freedman, S. R., & Enright, R. D. (1996). Forgiveness as an intervention goal with incest survivors. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64(5), 983-992.
Regarding the issue of forgiving the murderer of one’s child, Marietta Jaeger is well known for her forgiving the murderer of her child. You can view some of her presentations on YouTube.
Do you think it is necessary for people to seek support prior to forgiving someone for a deep and hurtful offense? Do you think people can go ahead without support under this circumstance?
Because forgiveness has not been front-and-center in discussions within societies, it has been my experience that the vast majority of people actually misunderstand what forgiveness is, equating it, for example, with giving into others’ demands or just letting the injustice go. These are not what forgiveness is at all and so people do need guidance to first understand what forgiveness is and is not. This takes support in either the written or spoken word from people who have thought deeply about forgiveness. If the support person equates forgiveness with any form of reductionism (for example, forgiveness is only getting rid of anger or forgiveness is only a decision to forgive) then this is not adequate support. A fuller view of forgiveness is necessary for the one offering support if the forgiver truly will be helped. The broader view of forgiveness involves reducing negative thoughts, feelings, and behaviors toward the offending person and developing more positive thoughts, feelings, and behaviors toward that person. This does not mean excusing the other or even necessarily reconciling if the other remains harmful. Also, forgiveness is a process that can take time. Seek out the support of those who deeply understand forgiveness so that your forgiveness can be accurate and effective.
Is forgiveness basically getting rid of anger toward someone who treated you badly? I was told recently that many scholars see forgiveness this way.
Getting rid of anger is **part** of forgiveness, but it cannot be the whole story if forgiveness is a moral virtue centered on goodness toward those who offend. For example, you can reduce anger or even get rid of it by thinking that the offending person is less than human. That kind of condemnation of the other as a person could lead to you feeling sorry for this person. In other words, you may be distorting the reality of who this person actually is, not seeing him as possessing inherent worth despite some bad behavior. When someone defines forgiving only as getting rid of anger, this is philosophical reductionism or reducing forgiveness to less than what it actually is.
My dictionary gives this definition of forgiving: “to stop feeling angry or resentful toward (someone) for an offense, flaw, or mistake.” What is your response to people who tell you that they don’t agree with your definition of forgiveness, which encompasses both positive and negative aspects of emotions, cognition, and behaviors toward those who have treated you unjustly?
If forgiveness is a moral virtue, what does the word “to forgive” entail? It cannot be both a moral virtue and only thought control to aid oneself. This is because no other moral virtue is exclusively about oneself. Virtues flow from one person to others for their good. If we insist that forgiveness is not a moral virtue, then it is imperative that those so insisting tell us what it is (and break with about 3,500 years of thinking on this matter). If I only cease with resentment, then I can demonstrate tolerance and cease to resent. I can demonstrate indifference and cease to resent. So, how can we distinguish forgiveness from these other ideas? We do so by defining it in such a way as to honor the “moral virtue” aspect of forgiveness. All moral virtues involve goodness toward others. What is the goodness that forgiveness offers? When a person forgives, that forgiver deliberately offers the goodness of understanding, kindness, respect, generosity, and even love toward the offender. Of course, people need not completely fulfill this definition to be forgiving. We all fall short of perfection in expressing any virtue. Our human imperfections do not invalidate what forgiveness is.
Can anger increase as a person begins the forgiveness process and begins to examine the offender’s life through what you call the personal perspective?
Yes, it is possible that anger can increase in the short term, especially if the one forgiving has denied the depth of the anger. Yet, as our research consistently shows, anger tends to decrease with practice and over time.
