Forgiveness is often stated as a general virtue: "To forgive, divine"; "Forgive and forget"; "I'm not perfect just forgiven." To forgive is something that is an assumption, the moral equivalent of following the rules in a game-- of course you do that. But should we always forgive? Are there times when it is better for everyone that we not forgive?
Before we begin our questions, we must first know that when we speak about forgiveness, we are talking about three different actions. The first action is releasing one's bitterness against a wrong done. This is the kind of forgiveness that is being spoken of in the statement, "To not forgive is like punishing another by cutting your own hands off." To not be bitter is to stop being angry about the situation, and it is a personal psychological state.
Honestly, there is no real reason not to forgive in this context. The question is often whether a person is psychologically able to release the thoughts of anger against another. As the statement above says, not to psychologically forgive only harms the one not forgiving.
The second action of forgiveness is at the root of the word. Originally to "forgive" means to wipe away a debt. This means that there was money or some other debt that is no longer held to another's account. The slate is wiped clean, there is a "zero" in the account book instead of a negative number. This has the moral connotation of complete mercy. There is no moral requirement for a person to not demand what was owed to them. However, at times compassion overrules quid pro quo.
The question of not forgiving in this context is more complicated. For some, there is a moral lapse in forgiving what was owed you. For many people there is a basic principle upon which the world works: You reap what you sow; Nothing in life is free; You must pay for what you use. If one forgives what was clearly owed (whether it be economically or some other kind of agreement), then that system breaks down, and people begin to assume that you don't have to pay for anything. Is that really true? Do we have to pay for everything-- the air we breathe is free, you are reading this post for free. Does use or ownership always require payment? Or are there aspects of life in which barter isn't ever required? There are large chunks of the internet that are free, including valuable software and hardware. Craigslist and other classifieds have whole communities that exchange items without cost. Do these communities hurt the normal way the world work?
There is a different question if someone is demanding forgiveness of what is owed. Clearly, forgiveness is something one asks for, not one demands. Grace is a gift, but it is not a principle of life. Unless one is in a community of giving, in which grace can be a demand. If one is in Craigslist "free" listing, is one right to be angry if money is required when you come to look at the item?
The third kind of forgiveness is related, but goes a step further, which is to release from punishment. Often there is a punitive requirement beyond a quid pro quo. If someone steals from a grocery store, the store not only demands the item returned (or the financial equivalent) but also will have the person arrested and punished for theft. Punishment is also meted out in everyday relationships. To insult a teenage girl is to be "punished" by her not speaking to you for a time. To sin and not repent in an Amish community is to receive shunning, or cutting off from the community. Adultery often ends in divorce, rejection of one friendship often means cutting the ties with other friends, to hit a person can mean to be hit back twice, or shot.
To forgive in this punitive context is to release one from any kind of continuing punishment. This is not necessarily releasing one from a quid pro quo (although it might include that), but it is releasing one from any other requirements. Once the debt is paid, the incident is set aside, not mentioned, as if the incident had never happened.
Why should we punish a wrong done? Some say that it prevents wrongs from being done. A person doesn't steal not only because it's wrong, but because there is an attached punishment that prevents one from doing that crime. A person doesn't commit adultery not only because it would be breaking their commitment, but there are also consequences to such action. But does forgiveness in one instance mean that all crimes are allowable? Will people really do whatever they want because wrongs are at times unpunished?
Other times we punish because it is emotionally satisfying. It is not enough for a person to pay back the same amount lost, there must be an additional payback. If our kid brother hits us, then we will hit back harder (unless he cries, which makes our dad hit us-- and he hits a lot harder). Unless we hurt a person a little more than they hurt us, we don't feel like we are able to forgive. Is this emotion morally correct? Is there a benefit of increasing punishment? Or does "An eye for an eye make the whole world blind" like Gandhi says?
No comments:
Post a Comment