Does forgiveness mean excusing one's actions?

[Yama]

Let's say that I know someone who did something that I viewed as harmful or bad and had negative consequences. If I choose to forgive them, am I excusing their actions? Does disagreeing with what they've done mean that I can never forgive them? What is forgiveness?

Discuss.

 

[Lark]

Let's say that I know someone who did something that I viewed as harmful or bad and had negative consequences. If I choose to forgive them, am I excusing their actions? Does disagreeing with what they've done mean that I can never forgive them? What is forgiveness?

Discuss.

I would suggest that in order for there to be a wrong forgiven there has to be a wrong in the first place, you dont excuse anything, you are merely setting limits to how much a wrong is going to be permitted to carry on effecting you once its happened.

I would also suggest that forgiveness, and the recognition of a wrong, should entail some opportunity for change on the part of the wrong doer too, although that's quite apart from someone choosing to forgive. Also I dont see the ideas of forgiving and forgetting are closely associated, JFK said something about forgiving your enemies but remembering were they live.

 

[Zangetshumody]

Just answering the title of this thread without reading the OP.

It would seem an excuse would exclude any meaning to the concept of forgiveness.

In my understanding of spirituality: Forgiveness and blame are not mutually exclusive, so long as blame is not put on the person's essential character, but some chosen employment of their (false) character. Forgiveness is not a form of blindness (or blind faith). This sort of thinking is the source of a lot of religious cognitive dissonance.

By all means: forgive the person, but don't forgive an ongoing 'condition' that you aware of, which that person is attached to. If you see the condition no longer attaches to them, you can pragmatically order your relationship on that new assumption: but don't act so as to pretend to be ignorant of things you are aware of, and don't begrudge the person (forgive them) for whatever roles they have cast themselves as- inside your awareness.

Abstract note: Whenever you are aware of 'themselves' (relatedness to the world in general), you are dealing with a unholy entity: the only way to overcome is not to resist, but to forgive.


Edit: I wanted to add the following right away, but typeC had crashed---

If actions are in the past and not ongoing traits, on that basis you can discern a renewed affiliation;- if behavior is ongoing, that is a separable issue to the forgiveness of the actor. Discerning the state of behavior is tricky depending on the clear and direct nature in a person's culture of communication, and most people will be tinged with a danger that is paradoxically fueled by their standards of moral knowledge, which produce a level of deceit to engineer those moral appearances they've bought into, at the expense of keeping sight of the truth, and developing on that truth for a progressive purpose (by the liberty of the real choice, not a programmed judgement). Similarly murky dealings are unavoidable by a myriad of social programming that prevents open expression of intentionality, which is further complicated when people decide on being undecided, and therefore uncertain of their own intentions, and project responsibility onto a God of the world type-authority, where there locus of control is totally externalized, freeing themselves to live vicariously through the subjugation to the story of their life. What I just detailed is also a mild form of Solipsism.

 

[Santosha]

So, do we need to have condemnation before we can have forgiveness? We must determine that someone has done something, that we don't agree with. Why do we care? Because we feel it hurts us, or hurts something we care about. So we are upset because we have allowed what someone else is doing, to affect our feelings.

Would we need to condemn, and then forgive others.. if we could control the way we view their actions?
If we could appreciate their actions, no matter how much they deviate from our own path/wishes, because we have learned how to be okay in ourselves, and we recognize the value in the experience... do we need to forgive?

 

[Yama]

So, do we need to have condemnation before we can have forgiveness? We must determine that someone has done something, that we don't agree with. Why do we care? Because we feel it hurts us, or hurts something we care about. So we are upset because we have allowed what someone else is doing, to affect our feelings.

Would we need to condemn, and then forgive others.. if we could control the way we view their actions?
If we could appreciate their actions, no matter how much they deviate from our own path/wishes, because we have learned how to be okay in ourselves, and we recognize the value in the experience... do we need to forgive?

What if they did something to you that was traumatizing? Should you still change the way you view their actions rather than condemn them? Can you think what they did was wrong without condemning them or is that the same thing? Should they be forgiven?

 

[Lark]

So, do we need to have condemnation before we can have forgiveness? We must determine that someone has done something, that we don't agree with. Why do we care? Because we feel it hurts us, or hurts something we care about. So we are upset because we have allowed what someone else is doing, to affect our feelings.

Would we need to condemn, and then forgive others.. if we could control the way we view their actions?
If we could appreciate their actions, no matter how much they deviate from our own path/wishes, because we have learned how to be okay in ourselves, and we recognize the value in the experience... do we need to forgive?

Some of the thinking that you've mentioned there I've recognized as being typical of some of the person centred therapies and been taken up with glee by individuals who have done real harm themselves, or permitted it to be done by others, all on the basis that there is no harm besides the perception of those who have received it and it is there perception and not anyone else's behaviour which ought to change.

Now I have read most of those therapies back and forward, especially some of the ideas about non-judgementalism and unconditional positive regard, which to be honest I'm in conflict with, I think there are duties of candor to clients too and clients can be done a serious disservice by professionals who fail to reflect universal norms and values about harm and in the process support distorted thinking. Sometimes I think there can be methodological arguments to support non-judgmentalism or positive regard but I would not support them in principle.

However, that is a bit of a digression, my point is that none of the theorists who developed these ideas, generally in response to something else altogether, would have anticipated this development, their schools of thoughts being used as rationalisations for individuals dealing with guilt about the harm they are responsible for or attempting a wider paradigm shift, which all offenders dream of, that society at large will join in their own thinking that there's really no victim in their offences, in fact if anything they're the victim of how everyone else thinks about them and their lack of charity or forgiveness.

As I said before in order for something to deserve forgiveness there needs to an original wrong, I think forgiveness is about someone saying that the original wrong will not continue to torment them, that they're setting a limit to the harm done. It sets and obligation on the wrong doer to change but whether or not they decide to act on that or not the original wrong isnt going to be permitted to matter any longer to the wronged party.

 

[Lark]

What if they did something to you that was traumatizing? Should you still change the way you view their actions rather than condemn them? Can you think what they did was wrong without condemning them or is that the same thing? Should they be forgiven?

There is that Socratic idea that no one does harm or wrong knowingly, that if they knew good they would do good, and there are myriad explanations for wrong doing which indicate that the wrong doer is anywhere and always a kind of retarded or perverted/distorted personality, now, a real remorseless offender/wrong doer who has no conscience is going to say that's all people seeking consolation who are unable to avenge the wrong, they're going to laugh at the idea of forgiveness altogether, even your average wrong doer/offender who still has a conscience, which they're repressed as much as they can, is going to be defensive, like I said enlisting theories such as the person centred therapy ones to excuse their actions and wrong doing.

Its part of what perturbs me about attacks on moralism and the whole Nietzsche lite thing, some of the time its people whose conscience weighs to heavily upon them and are seeking some sort of respite from it, most of the time its some real assholes looking for any sort of support for the unsupportable, unsupportable in their own head, unsupportable in the heads of anyone else who was aware of their conduct.

 

[GIjade]

Some of the thinking that you've mentioned there I've recognized as being typical of some of the person centred therapies and been taken up with glee by individuals who have done real harm themselves, or permitted it to be done by others, all on the basis that there is no harm besides the perception of those who have received it and it is there perception and not anyone else's behaviour which ought to change.

Now I have read most of those therapies back and forward, especially some of the ideas about non-judgementalism and unconditional positive regard, which to be honest I'm in conflict with, I think there are duties of candor to clients too and clients can be done a serious disservice by professionals who fail to reflect universal norms and values about harm and in the process support distorted thinking. Sometimes I think there can be methodological arguments to support non-judgmentalism or positive regard but I would not support them in principle.

Wow. I've studied some Psychology, but have never heard of this kind of therapy. Person-centered. I can see an individual using this sort of thinking on thier own to justify their actions, but I can't imagine a psychologist condoning it let alone actually encouraging someone to think that way.

 

[GIjade]

There is that Socratic idea that no one does harm or wrong knowingly, that if they knew good they would do good,

Never heard of this either. Of course people do harm knowingly. Well, I guess I believe that because I believe everyone is born with a conscience (except pyschopaths) and even without being taught about what harm really means, they know what it is inherently.

 

[21%]

I believe you should forgive someone for your own sake more than anything else: so that you can finally let go of the hurt they caused you. It's really hard, but it's liberating.

 

[GIjade]

I believe you should forgive someone for your own sake more than anything else: so that you can finally let go of the hurt they caused you. It's really hard, but it's liberating.

Easy to say, hard to do.

 

[Lark]

Wow. I've studied some Psychology, but have never heard of this kind of therapy. Person-centered. I can see an individual using this sort of thinking on thier own to justify their actions, but I can't imagine a psychologist condoning it let alone actually encouraging someone to think that way.

You're joking right?

It is a massively well established school of thought, Carl Rogers was the first, his books on Person Centred Therapy and Becoming A Person are still available, I heavily criticised one of them on Amazon and I keep the review up despite the amount of unhelpful votes I got on that particular review probably dragging my entire rating down.

In fairness he was developing something in contrast to existing rigidity surrounding psycho-analysis and sitting behind your client unnoticed and letting them talk to a seemingly empty room, free associating for the hour, even when you're critically evaluating theory you need to situate it in context.

Its used, or at least informs, some motivational interviewing or addictions counselling styles here, at least at the outset of sessions when a therapeutic relationship or alliance has to be developed between counsellor and client. I've been at training in which the actual training didnt go much beyond the principle of non-judgementalism and the trainer tied most of the professionals in notes exploring the idea and engaging in a lot of equivocation about their own bad habits, ie exceeding speed limits, smoking etc., and that of clients they were encouraging to change.

 

[Lark]

Never heard of this either. Of course people do harm knowingly. Well, I guess I believe that because I believe everyone is born with a conscience (except pyschopaths) and even without being taught about what harm really means, they know what it is inherently.

Hmm, yeah, there are natural law theorists who'd suggest such, Socrates felt there was no evil but ignorance and anyone committing evil could not know what they were doing.

 

[Lark]

I believe you should forgive someone for your own sake more than anything else: so that you can finally let go of the hurt they caused you. It's really hard, but it's liberating.

I was suggesting the same in a couple of the posts I made, its setting a limit on the harm done.

There's a lot of people I know who casually commit harm to others who relish the idea of it being remembered and having consequences for a long time beyond the incident. If you watch any of those documentaries about crime or war sometimes I think the people being interviewed behave like that.

 

[GIjade]

You're joking right?

It is a massively well established school of thought, Carl Rogers was the first, his books on Person Centred Therapy and Becoming A Person are still available, I heavily criticised one of them on Amazon and I keep the review up despite the amount of unhelpful votes I got on that particular review probably dragging my entire rating down.

In fairness he was developing something in contrast to existing rigidity surrounding psycho-analysis and sitting behind your client unnoticed and letting them talk to a seemingly empty room, free associating for the hour, even when you're critically evaluating theory you need to situate it in context.

Its used, or at least informs, some motivational interviewing or addictions counselling styles here, at least at the outset of sessions when a therapeutic relationship or alliance has to be developed between counsellor and client. I've been at training in which the actual training didnt go much beyond the principle of non-judgementalism and the trainer tied most of the professionals in notes exploring the idea and engaging in a lot of equivocation about their own bad habits, ie exceeding speed limits, smoking etc., and that of clients they were encouraging to change.

No, not joking. I was referring more to the idea of encouraging someone to do as they wish and not worry about the person they harm because ultimately it is the responsibility of the "victim" to change their perception of the wrong done to them. Isn't that what you wrote about earlier?

 

[GIjade]

I was suggesting the same in a couple of the posts I made, its setting a limit on the harm done.

There's a lot of people I know who casually commit harm to others who relish the idea of it being remembered and having consequences for a long time beyond the incident. If you watch any of those documentaries about crime or war sometimes I think the people being interviewed behave like that.

Why would anyone relish that. Why would anyone want to have to endure the consequences of harming someone else.

- - - Updated - - -

Hmm, yeah, there are natural law theorists who'd suggest such, Socrates felt there was no evil but ignorance and anyone committing evil could not know what they were doing.

That is SO weird!

 

[Virtual ghost]

Let's say that I know someone who did something that I viewed as harmful or bad and had negative consequences. If I choose to forgive them, am I excusing their actions? Does disagreeing with what they've done mean that I can never forgive them? What is forgiveness?

Discuss.

1. Did the person do this while knowing that results will be bad.

2. All of this highly depends on is there a honest regret about what was done and did it ever happen again.


For me forgivness is basically much more about "this shouldn't happen again" than some social gesture.

 

[Yama]

1. Did the person do this while knowing that results will be bad.

2. All of this highly depends on is there a honest regret about what was done and did it ever happen again.


For me forgivness is basically much more about "this shouldn't happen again" than some social gesture.

And if you don't know if they regret it or not? If you don't know if they knew it was bad or not? If you no longer have contact with the person, and forgiveness wouldn't be an external gesture but an internal one? What then?

 

[kyuuei]

In the sense that you're telling them it's cool that they did that? No. You're never making an excuse for what has happened already with forgiveness. Forgiveness more.. sets a guideline for how things will be going forward.

Sometimes, that means it's alright that they did wrong then, and that you're still going to treat them the same way. Understanding the intentions behind something, even if it resulted in negative consequences, and letting someone know you forgive them can ease the tension, and allow things going forward to be as chill as they once were.

... And other times, that means setting a whole new boundary that never existed before. Like... I forgive my sister for stealing my credit card, but I also let her know I will never, ever help her with money again. She broke that trust, and while I won't hold it over her head forever and treat her with contempt forever, I won't be giving her any more assistance no matter what the circumstances. I'll still be there for her emotionally, or donate my time or effort or offer advice if she asks.. but I won't trust her with money anymore. Ever. She broke that off, and for the status between us to remain the same, this is what I need in order to forgive her and make the balance even again.

You dont ever excuse one's actions with forgiveness. You're letting them know where you're at. That's why it is so important for it to be genuine. Because it sets a precedent for the future. And if you feel pressured to forgive someone but you really don't... the future is a gray area open to all sorts of issues and drama.

 

[Virtual ghost]

And if you don't know if they regret it or not? If you don't know if they knew it was bad or not? If you no longer have contact with the person, and forgiveness wouldn't be an external gesture but an internal one? What then?

In that case results don't really concern me and I would focus on something smarter. In the case that the person did something really really bad I would notify authorities. I trully see no reason to smash my head to the wall over this.