Often when people do very bad things, someone forgives them and not always the victim. A father in Northern Ireland famously forgave the man who murdered his daughter. We can see the goodness in a victim forgiving an attacker but surely it is wrong for others, not involved in the attack, to forgive.
Is it wrong to forgive when one is not the sufferer?
Is it wrong to forgive?
Moderator: Moderators
-
OnlineWilliam
- Savant
- Posts: 14069
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 907 times
- Been thanked: 1637 times
- Contact:
Post #21
[Replying to post 19 by marco]
They are choosing to forgive the pain and sorrow and hardship that the crime has caused themselves as well.
Commendable but not what was asked in the OP. The person who was hurt forgives NOT for the crime, but for the personal hurt received. There is no forgiveness for the original crime.
Why would it be wrong? Why, for that matter, would you regard the dad of the murdered child to not have experienced suffering?marco wrote: Often when people do very bad things, someone forgives them and not always the victim. A father in Northern Ireland famously forgave the man who murdered his daughter. We can see the goodness in a victim forgiving an attacker but surely it is wrong for others, not involved in the attack, to forgive.
Is it wrong to forgive when one is not the sufferer?
Re: Is it wrong to forgive?
Post #22Aetixintro wrote: [Replying to post 1 by marco]
I see no reason to bother to forgive "heathens", the malicious people, as they are probably not humans for it either way.
To them, the forgiveness can only suggest that a given Christian is opening the heart to evil of the recipient for the forgiveness which is an evil hope for them, that they have been successful in their attacks on humanity.
So there may be a normative sentence for Christians so to not burden one's heart with the "contradictory" feeling to "accept" the wrongdoing of one who may have only had the worst motivations for it either way: "Do not forgive people who are not people for receiving forgiveness. Don't forgive if it breaks your heart and you feel awful by it!"
Psychology is more useful than ever before.
Psychology is in its infancy. It has interesting applications and numerous superfluous syndromes. Astrology is also interesting.
I understand that Christians are asked to forgive not once but seventy times seven if we are to believe Matthew 18:22 . That's a strange number for Jesus to pick. As long as people persist in their malice there is no need to forgive them, I would have thought. Of course what one person sees as malice another sees as good; what some see as knowledge, others see as superstition. Education is good medicine for superstition.
Post #23
William wrote:
Why would it be wrong? Why, for that matter, would you regard the dad of the murdered child to not have experienced suffering?
I think I have adequately covered this in previous replies. Is it wrong to forgive someone for causing you hurt? No, of course not. But that's not the question. Is it wrong to forgive someone for killing someone or for hurting somebody else? There is an element of intrusion in such forgiveness, since we are not the victims. By all means forgive for the inconvenience caused to ourselves.
"You stole all my neighbour's money and burned their house down, killing some of their family - but I forgive you!" I wonder if this is correct.
-
OnlineWilliam
- Savant
- Posts: 14069
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 907 times
- Been thanked: 1637 times
- Contact:
Post #24
[Replying to post 23 by marco]
It is not wrong for those hurt by indirect actions, to forgive the perpetrator, in such cases.
If I thought that, I would not still be seeking answers from you about it.I think I have adequately covered this in previous replies.
Agreed.Is it wrong to forgive someone for causing you hurt? No, of course not.
Agreed.But that's not the question.
The example you gave re the father of the murdered daughter doesn't dovetail with the question. The father would naturally be hurt, even that this would not direct hurt...the indirect is accounted for in the perpetrators action - this is why families grieve for their losses in such circumstance.Is it wrong to forgive someone for killing someone or for hurting somebody else?
It is not wrong for those hurt by indirect actions, to forgive the perpetrator, in such cases.
The father was more than simply 'inconvenienced' Marco.There is an element of intrusion in such forgiveness, since we are not the victims. By all means forgive for the inconvenience caused to ourselves.
Perhaps it is not really a question of morality at all?"You stole all my neighbour's money and burned their house down, killing some of their family - but I forgive you!" I wonder if this is correct.
Post #25
Not as much as the girl. The father forgave the killer for causing him hurt; he had no remit in forgiving the murder.William wrote:
The father was more than simply 'inconvenienced' Marco.
An Afghani girl dated a boy of the wrong religion. Her uncle killed her and her father forgave his brother, understanding perfectly why the crime was committed. Was the father right to forgive?
Why do we judge it right in some cases and wrong in others?
-
OnlineWilliam
- Savant
- Posts: 14069
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 907 times
- Been thanked: 1637 times
- Contact:
Post #26
[Replying to post 25 by marco]
By what social customs am I to position myself in order to answer that Marco, when some would say 'yes' and some would say 'no'?An Afghani girl dated a boy of the wrong religion. Her uncle killed her and her father forgave his brother, understanding perfectly why the crime was committed. Was the father right to forgive?
My overall argument is that it is best not to judge it on the basis of 'right' and 'wrong'. Why social customs do so, appears to based on what is good for the majority of the community. Forgiveness is not usually (if ever) a feature of such laws.Why do we judge it right in some cases and wrong in others?
-
- Student
- Posts: 42
- Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 12:25 am
Post #27
It is an injustice to forgive a person who did wrong to another.
Say a person molests a child, and is sentenced to prison for it. As a neighbour of the molester, I go ahead and forgive him for his crime. I let him out of prison a free man.
That is what forgiveness is--a wiping of the slate. If a person is forgiven, any punishment from a past crime is also gone. Otherwise there is not forgivness. In a christian context, it is like Christ forgives your sins but you still go to hell for them.
Lets take an example. Say there is a man named Saul, who has hunted down and murdered innocent people because of their faith. Is it right that an unrelated person forgive him for those murders? Any moral person will say no, it is not right at all. It is the exclusive right of those directly affected to forgive or not.
Say a person molests a child, and is sentenced to prison for it. As a neighbour of the molester, I go ahead and forgive him for his crime. I let him out of prison a free man.
That is what forgiveness is--a wiping of the slate. If a person is forgiven, any punishment from a past crime is also gone. Otherwise there is not forgivness. In a christian context, it is like Christ forgives your sins but you still go to hell for them.
Lets take an example. Say there is a man named Saul, who has hunted down and murdered innocent people because of their faith. Is it right that an unrelated person forgive him for those murders? Any moral person will say no, it is not right at all. It is the exclusive right of those directly affected to forgive or not.
Post #28
William wrote:
By what social customs am I to position myself in order to answer that Marco, when some would say 'yes' and some would say 'no'?
We are not required to answer questions by placing ourselves under the conventions of local custom. As it happens, uncle and father buried the girl alive. Do we really need to agonise over whether this is right or wrong? So too with forgiveness - we address a philosophical question.
William wrote:
My overall argument is that it is best not to judge it on the basis of 'right' and 'wrong'. Why social customs do so, appears to based on what is good for the majority of the community. Forgiveness is not usually (if ever) a feature of such laws.
I am not an advocate of cultural diversity. I think we define ourselves as humans, and we act accordingly on issues. A couple who beat their daughter, breaking her fingers, were excused in a court because where they came from strict punishment was the acceptable norm. For me the sole consideration should be the welfare of the girl: all else is a silly irrelevance. But we are in a philosophical debate about forgiveness and who has the right to forgive. We rise above barbarity, not take it into consideration in our assessment.
Post #29
twobitsworth wrote:
Lets take an example. Say there is a man named Saul, who has hunted down and murdered innocent people because of their faith. Is it right that an unrelated person forgive him for those murders? Any moral person will say no, it is not right at all. It is the exclusive right of those directly affected to forgive or not.
That's the essence of the problem. We glibly look at Paul and forget people whose lives he possibly ended. And we read of noble Abraham who raised a knife to murder his son and we forgive him- even admire him - for doing what he thought he was told to do. We hear of a similar case in modern times where a woman is told - in her head - that God wants her daughter killed since she has a devil in her. The woman kills the daughter and no sheep are waiting around. Do we likewise forgive her since she acted for her God - or thought she did?
Forgiveness must take the victim into consideration; and only the victim - if still alive - can extend forgiveness.
-
OnlineWilliam
- Savant
- Posts: 14069
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 907 times
- Been thanked: 1637 times
- Contact:
Post #30
[Replying to post 28 by marco]
Then you give another example which this time has only one sufferer and two culprits, and ask the same Q. Who has suffered in your new example? Was it the uncle. whom the brother forgave?
Your question re that example was "Was the father right to forgive?"but how does the example align with the original OPQ "Is it wrong to forgive when one is not the sufferer?"
The example was cultural, so my question "By what social customs am I to position myself in order to answer that Marco, when some would say 'yes' and some would say 'no'?" reflected that. Your example changed tracks.
Surely if it is wrong to forgive when one is 'not involved' then it is equally wrong to condemn when one is not involved.
Or, it is not wrong to either forgive or condemn when one is not involved.
Or perhaps, one is only really not involved if one is not exposed to it at all - is ignorant of it.
Why someone forgiving someone else should cause me any reason to judge them right or wrong is the question I ask myself, and the answer I give myself, is that it doesn't.
The OPQ is a philosophical one?As it happens, uncle and father buried the girl alive. Do we really need to agonise over whether this is right or wrong? So too with forgiveness - we address a philosophical question.
My answer was given re your first example because, even naturally the father of the murdered girl would also have suffered.Is it wrong to forgive when one is not the sufferer?
Then you give another example which this time has only one sufferer and two culprits, and ask the same Q. Who has suffered in your new example? Was it the uncle. whom the brother forgave?
Your question re that example was "Was the father right to forgive?"but how does the example align with the original OPQ "Is it wrong to forgive when one is not the sufferer?"
The example was cultural, so my question "By what social customs am I to position myself in order to answer that Marco, when some would say 'yes' and some would say 'no'?" reflected that. Your example changed tracks.
From the OPBut we are in a philosophical debate about forgiveness and who has the right to forgive. We rise above barbarity, not take it into consideration in our assessment.
We can see the goodness in a victim forgiving an attacker but surely it is wrong for others, not involved in the attack, to forgive.
Surely if it is wrong to forgive when one is 'not involved' then it is equally wrong to condemn when one is not involved.
Or, it is not wrong to either forgive or condemn when one is not involved.
Or perhaps, one is only really not involved if one is not exposed to it at all - is ignorant of it.
Why someone forgiving someone else should cause me any reason to judge them right or wrong is the question I ask myself, and the answer I give myself, is that it doesn't.