Forgiveness

Post Reply New Topic

I think I'd rather have people understand me than forgive me

And that's because when I do something I do because I believe it's the right thing to do at that particular, for whatever reason

Now sometimes those things might not fit into other peoples plans or other people's way of doing things so then I become a bad person who may then be a candidate (in some people's eyes) for forgiveness

But in my mind I've not done anything to be forgiven for

So that's all really

Have a good day

I heard this three year old episode of Stuff You Should Know episode, recently, so it must have been a recent "Selects" episode. I think the message is the person that has been wronged is the person that benefits by forgiving.


Like what funeralxempire said.

Forgiveness for doing something socially unacceptable? Or forgiveness for causing harm to another human being? Or forgiveness for causing harm to someone we personally care about?

The first to me looks like a need for acceptance.

The second looks like a need to make adequate restitution and/or to provide adequate acknowledgement.

The third is confusing for me. It is hard for me to see past the need to understand. What has happened, what the damage is, the other person's view of what should happen next.

Well you've got nothing to worry about with all that lovely kindness you've been dispensing around the place

Being understood is great when one's behaviour is defensible.

Being forgiven is for when one's behaviour can't be defended.

Do you think intentions make a difference?

I haven't sliced-and-diced anyone with the knife of malice but I have whacked a few over the head with the mallet of well-meaning stupidity.

Maybe sometimes there is a difference for the person being sliced / whacked. Knowing someone wants to hurt you or doesn't care if you are hurt is particularly painful, in my opinion. But in terms of culpability I don't think it makes any difference.

Do you mean defensible in rational terms or in human terms? I think states perpetrate a lot of rationally defensible violence, for example. (I don't say it is rational, mind. Only that the defence is maintained.) On the other hand, say someone dear to me drove a car through a shop window in a fit of temper because she was having a bad day. It is not rational but I think it is understandable.

For me the indefensible things are cruelty and indifference, and forgiveness seems like an irrelevant concept in those cases.

I think we feel sorry when we have accomplished the ends of cruelty or of indifference without actually being cruel or indifferent. That is a feeling that needs to be resolved somehow. The process might end with forgiveness, but it doesn't always, and I don't think forgiveness is really the point of it.

Who's this "we" you like to talk of

I hope you're not including me in your theories

This bit?

I think it is instinct, part of 'our' evolution as social animals.

That is, I think the quest for forgiveness, when it occurs, is on some level to do with acceptance within the group and the need to resolve issues that can lead to exclusion from the group, because that has been a threat to survival.

I cannot speak for all of humanity and I should not use 'we'. It was a lazy generalisation. I definitely did not mean 'every person'.

Yes, intentions make a difference.

Intentional harm, negligent harm, ignorant harm and accidental harm owe different responses because each requires a different approach to alter the other party's behaviour.

When I say defensible, you can consider different definitions of the word. I'm not really sure where you'd draw the line between the two types you define. If the antagonist believes their behaviour can be defended, they're less likely to choose contrition.

The example you give as understandable, I believe is understandable on a empathetic level, but can't ever be sympathized with. If the party who did that believes their actions should be seen sympathetically, they're unlikely to express much in the way of contrition because they're more likely to defend/seek sympathizers than just admit they threw an inappropriate tantrum and are 100% in the wrong.