What Does Forgiveness Really Mean?

The word ‘forgiveness’ is used often. I wonder if people really have thought about what it means? It seems to be a word that stands in for a concept that is assumed to be universally understood by all who utter it. After I read the essay titled Forgivers Assesmble! by Daniel Malloy, I decided to explore the notion of ‘forgiveness’.

To look at ‘forgiveness’, we need to know when it is used. The action of forgiving occurs when a person chooses to “stop feeling resentment and anger for an offence, flaw, or mistake”, according to the mac dictionary on my computer. The act of forgiveness is anaclitic and dependent on the person who received an effect from an “offence, flaw or mistake”. We need to break this up more to understand the morass of ‘forgiveness’.

Actions

The actions of individuals often have unintended consequences. I liked the book How Life Imitates Chess by Garry Kasparov. In it, he explains how life is complex and needs constant assessment to make informed judgments about the future. I have enjoyed playing chess, but my moves are never fully planned out. Making decisions and acting out on them, is the essence of living in a society.

It seems that when people act, they cannot see all outcomes. I assume people have the best intentions when they act. It is hard to think that people would willingly and consciously make life-moves that will result in malfeasance.

I have learned from comics that all people have a choice in their actions. To me, it seems that people will always try to perform actions that will always be towards the good. This brings up what is “good” and what can qualify as a “good act”. Philosophy has two theories: consequentialism, which states that a good act depends on the result and deontology, which relies on actions and one’s duty. This perspective will guide one’s actions. An individual will have to choose which method is more important. (Like most things, there is a gray area and people can change methods)

Persons

The way a person acts relies on their view of the outcome. Some people will look at the end result and determine that that matters more than anything else. Most people quote Machiavelli as saying that the “ends justify the means”. I don’t know if this is correct (I never read The Prince). Alternatively, people may act out of a sense of duty and act accordingly. A person may think that standing by principles is more important than the effects of those choices. The important concept is that either view cannot be dictated and forced as a method of decision-making.

Either view may lead to a need for forgiveness. If a person acts through ether mechanism, they may offend or make mistakes to a person-reciever. When the responsibility of forgiveness is on the receiver, the action-taker cannot have control of the situation (I think this is why nihilists choose nihilism). If we assume most people want to do well or at least avoid harm, the ability to forgive becomes important, if relationships are to be maintained.

Perception

What if the receiver’s perception is not the same as the action-taker? For example, when a business cannot give a worker a raise because there are not enough funds, the perception of the employee is that the business does not value them (or else they would pay the individual more).

Perception definitely cannot be controlled for. There is no way to ensure that a receiver will accept an action the way an action-taker intended. This is the same problem as asking- “is the glass half empty or half full?” People see things differently.

How are different perceptions rectified?

The onus of responsibility

Who has the responsibility to ensure that both parties are on the same page? I think we have to determine if both parties want to be on the same page first.  One way to determine if both parties are on the same page is to know if the action-taker is repentant for the “offence, flaw, or mistake”. Often, this may just be as simple as having open communication of the other’s perception. The key is that both parties can recognize the same goal. People may never agree, but when both ideals are recognized and acknowledged as valid, forgiveness can begin.

When forgiveness is appropriate and when it is not

If an action is permanent, can it be forgiven? Does the ability to forgive make a person a strong person or a weak person? Jacques Derrida brought this up in his essay On Forgiveness. Some might say that it depends on the action; maybe some things truly are unforgivable. Can a person serve enough punishment for a wrong that eventually forgiveness is given? Our justice system is built on that premise.

Is it right to live in perpetual penalties for an action. Does forgiveness mean that the receiver is weak and accepting the action means that the receiver accepts the action as acceptable? Even if some things cannot be undone, does that mean that the results are permanent? I think that this is not the case. I would like to think that forgiveness is a higher brain function that means that grudges will not last forever.

What purpose do grudges serve?

An example: Civil War

Some may know the premise of Marvel’s Civil War. The US wanted to have the super humans register with the government. Iron man was pro-registration and Captain America was anti-registration. This lead to a civil war among heroes, that left allies divided, especially the Avengers.

If we look at this scenario, each hero did actions that harmed the other. Each said things and did things that hurt and harmed each other. After enough casualties, the war had to end. Capt. turned himself in so there could be no more harm for the greater-society. Ultimately (as in comics), there was a need for heroes to fight and unite to save the world.

This proves that even fighting friends can put aside differences for a greater good. Is there a criterion for forgiveness? What are the prerequisites for forgiveness? I think that a person needs to repent. It would seem that a person would have to be willing to engage in the act of forgiveness as well. Iron man and Captain America had to work together for forgiveness. Both had to understand that neither was right, they were acting out according to their principles, with different outcomes. Ultimately, in order to move forward for the betterment of the world, they had to work together to build their working relationship.

Why do we need forgiveness?

Humans are complex. Humans interact with others. (Some try for solipsism, but that isn’t the Truth) Since the world is complex, people are fallible, no one can predict 10 moves ahead in their life, and two people cannot have identical perspectives, a certain action/decision will not always satisfy everyone.

The ability to forgive is a higher function of humans. If people do not forgive others, relationships will never be maintained. It is the inevitability of life that at one point, someone will disappoint, offend, or make a mistake. Is it right to not forgive others? I would say that if people want to foster meaningful, everlasting relationships, forgiveness is a necessary condition.