The Ethics of Forgiveness
The ethics of forgiveness
Summary:
Picture a scenario where your pet puppy runs off to the street, and your neighbor, who is texting while driving, fails to pay attention and accidentally runs him over. Now, consider: what does it mean to forgive; what is required of your neighbor to receive forgiveness; and are we morally obligated to forgive? In this blog, we will explore views from both past, renowned philosophers and contemporary philosophers.
Is it morally permissible to hold grudges?
Many religions, both in the East and the West (such as Buddhism and Christianity), consider hatred a vice. From Jesus’ teaching to turn the other cheek to Buddhism’s label of hatred as one of the three poisons in life, it is often assumed that it is best to let go of grudges and come to reconciliation. A virtuous person would leave the past in the past, moving on with their life without seeking retaliation because inflicting more pain on others is futile; it does not mend what was once broken and only results in further suffering in general, right?
Does this mean to hate is morally impermissible? It’s certainly worth arguing that one's moral actions should have consequences, whether enforced by the criminal justice system or through informal sanctions such as the norms and the customs, which extend beyond the scope of the law. This is one of the reasons why negative feelings towards the wrongdoer exist in the first place, for the judgment of right from wrong, to cultivate a sense of universal morality. More importantly, resentment is one of the most basic human emotions alongside love, fostered from our capacity to care and empathize. It is a natural response when witnessing harm inflicted on guiltless individuals, triggering negative emotions such as anger towards the wrongdoer. These emotional responses are important in facilitating moral intuition, allowing swift and innate moral judgment without the need to consult moral doctrines. Some philosophers even argue that if someone witnesses moral wrongdoings without any emotional response, such an individual cannot be deemed moral, as they lack basic empathy.
Kantian and Nicomachean Ethics on forgiveness
Despite the fact that hatred plays a profound role in humanity, such as maintaining order and justice and the shaping of our moral judgment, forgiveness remains important in promoting healing and the restoration of relationships. While moral actions have consequences, forgiveness offers an opportunity for individuals and communities to move beyond those consequences, foster empathy, and seek resolution rather than perpetuating a cycle of hatred and conflict. While some philosophers define forgiveness as a moral duty, others define it as a virtue. But this virtue, if carried too far, can be a vice as well, according to Kantian ethics and Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. Aristotle’s virtue ethics values the "golden mean" or moderation in virtuous character, thus he believes that the person deficient in appropriate anger is unlikely to defend himself and would endure being insulted and is for this reason is not ideal. On the other hand, someone who is excessively vengeful or wrathful is an extreme and lacks the virtue of temperance.
On the other hand, Kantian ethics does not advocate for unconditional forgiveness either, given the duty individuals have towards the dignity of humanity and their own dignity. Kantian ethics treats humanity as an end in itself. Kant believes that all rational beings should be treated with respect and dignity. Even when penalizing wrongdoers, we ought not dishonor humanity, as the intrinsic worth of rational beings must always be upheld. It is natural for individuals to desire the protection of their rights, which is the foundation of their humanity. A person who fails to become angry at injustices done to others lacks respect for the dignity of humanity; and a person who fails to become angry at injustices done to themselves lacks dignity and self-respect. However, excessive vengeance leads to implacability, a desire for harm to befall those who violated one's rights, and ultimately fails to promote a deeper respect for those rights (Kant Lectures on Ethics Heath and Schneewind).
What does it mean to forgive?
The ethics of forgiveness lies beyond finding a balance. True forgiveness should be distinguished from other sentiments that merely involve letting go of grudges, such as condonation. Condonation is defined as “accepting while not disapproving,” which is the acknowledgement of wrongfulness of the wrongdoing without expressing disapproval, or a sense of tolerance, in which one “looks the other way” or “putting up with” the wrongdoing (Hughes, Paul M. and Brandon Warmke). It's also important to separate forgiveness from reconciliation, or the restoration of relationship between the offending party and the offended. Reconciliation is “neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for forgiveness”, in other words, it’s possible to forgive someone without reconciliation, while reconciliation does not imply forgiveness (Radzik, Linda and Colleen Murphy).
Genuine forgiveness goes beyond a mere act of will; it is an authentic response that transcends individual volition. Therefore, it is impossible to be morally obligated to forgive, as that is not epistemologically a valid reason for forgiveness to take place. The act of forgiveness is a multifaceted concept that extends beyond mere actions. It involves a shift in emotions, attitudes, and perspectives towards the party at fault, rather than just focusing on their offense and the retribution. This shift includes letting go of negative feelings, resentment, or a desire for revenge, irrespective of the outcome for the responsible party. For example, one might forgive by rationalizing the wrongdoer's behavior or understanding their circumstances.
However, questions arise regarding the validity and moral permissibility of forgiving without demanding redemption actions. The ethical dimension of forgiveness is challenged when the party at fault fails to take corrective actions. Is it ethically justifiable to forgive someone genuinely at fault who does not take steps to redeem themselves?
New perspective: Martha Nussbaum's critique
Martha Nussbaum's critique of the "transactional" form of forgiveness addresses the ethical dilemma inherent in requiring conditions, such as apologies or admissions of wrongdoing, from the wrongdoer. While this approach has been ingrained as a common practice in our daily life, it can be problematic as it may result in a perceived "down-ranking" of the wrongdoer, who is expected to meet specific requirements to earn forgiveness. The act of demanding an apology, acknowledgment of wrongdoing, or a display of humility from the perpetrator could be seen as the victim compelling the wrongdoer to humble themselves and essentially "lower" themselves to meet the victim's conditions for forgiveness. This dynamic may reinforce power imbalances and hinder the development of healthy relationships.
In conclusion, even though hating is a natural and morally permissible human response, it does not diminish the importance of forgiveness. However, the concept of forgiveness has ethical challenges. Philosophical perspectives, such as Aristotle's virtue ethics and Kantian ethics, caution against excessive forgiveness, emphasizing the need for a balanced and measured approach. Ultimately, forgiveness emerges not as a dictated obligation or as a virtue, it is rooted in individual choice. It transcends external conditions or actions by the wrongdoer. The act of forgiveness is a deeply personal and subjective experience, offering the forgiver an opportunity for healing and moving forward, even when redemption actions from the wrongdoer are absent or challenging to fulfill. This exploration into the ethics of forgiveness invites us to reflect on our own capacity for forgiveness, the ethical dilemmas it presents, and the transformative power it holds.
Reference
Hughes, Paul M. and Brandon Warmke, "Forgiveness", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2022 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2022/entries/forgiveness/>.
Kant, Immanuel. Lectures on Ethics (The Cambridge Edition of the Works of Immanuel Kant), edited by Peter Heath and J. B. Schneewind, Cambridge University Press, 1997.
doi:10.1017/CBO9781107049512.
Radzik, Linda and Colleen Murphy, "Reconciliation", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2023 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2023/entries/reconciliation/>.
Thurow, Joshua C., "Atonement", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2023 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2023/entries/atonement/>.