FORGIVENESS

[Angra Mainyu]

To elaborate: including that some people think forgiveness (in particular circumstances) is the right thing of itself. I'm not sure I agree with them about that, because I have certain reservations about 'of itself', but hey.

I do not know what you mean by "right thing of itself". To me, that sounds as conflation good/right. But regardless, why do you think that they disagree with me that just retribution is a good thing, in an of itself?

I believe it is, but I do not think it is generally obligatory, and I often do not choose it.

It is sometimes.

Example?

Answering the question. And declaring it invalid for no good reason in order to do that.

That is false. First, I did not 'declare' the question invalid. I argued it seemed to have a problem.

Second, I did not do that in order to avoid answering (by the way, you really do not have the slightest idea about how I think).

Third, I answered the question!!!! Twice!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You just cut off my reply from your post, and instead accused me of dodging. Why? So, I insisted in replying. And now you insist on the false dodge charge.

So, here goes my reply, for the n-th time: I have said many times, I do not believe that just retribution is in general obligatory. I believe that it is generally permissible, though not always. This is a different matter from whether it is a good.

Come now, Angra. You are in a situation, you can either forgive or punish. If you forgive, you have to let go of any retributive urges, that you might or might not have had initially. I'm not talking about partial forgiveness.

How can I be in such a situation? I can do neither. Or I can forgive. But that is not at all your question. You asked "But if it's a choice between one or the other (retribution or forgiveness), there is no one correct/right/proper/one-size-fits-all choice for responses to wrongdoings, that's my substantive point. Would you disagree?".

Well, I disagree with to the binary nature of the choice, but obviously, there is no one correct choice for all responses. I have said that like a gazillion times, even before you asked me, even in the other thread - no, in the other two threads. When will you understand just that little bit about my position?

If it helps, think of a very mild transgression. I'm not asking you to forgive someone who raped your daughter or killed her for fun.

I'm talking about the principle here. It will obviously be harder to forgive the further up the scale you go.

Infidelity is one that is commonly discussed. But there are even milder ones.

Forgiveness works sometimes for the people forgiving, and is permissible in many, many cases. Why do you keep asking that?

 

[ruby sparks]

....obviously, there is no one correct choice for all responses. I have said that like a gazillion times, even before you asked me, even in the other thread - no, in the other two threads. When will you understand just that little bit about my position?

I honestly do not think I am the only person you confuse, Angra. It is hard for me to be sure what your position actually is. Ditto in the other thread regarding whether you think there are facts about morality that are independent of human assessments.

 

[ruby sparks]

....obviously, there is no one correct choice for all responses.

I honestly do not think I am by any means the only person who is confused by your posts, Angra. It is hard for me to be sure what your position actually is at any given time. Ditto in the other thread regarding whether you think there are facts about morality that are independent of human assessments.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

....obviously, there is no one correct choice for all responses. I have said that like a gazillion times, even before you asked me, even in the other thread - no, in the other two threads. When will you understand just that little bit about my position?

I honestly do not think I am the only person you confuse, Angra. It is hard for me to be sure what your position actually is. Ditto in the other thread regarding whether you think there are facts about morality that are independent of human assessments.

I think I have been pretty clear, but if there is something you do not understand about my position, you can ask me.

 

[ruby sparks]

I think I have been pretty clear, but if there is something you do not understand about my position, you can ask me.

Basically, I am now not even sure what we have been disagreeing about.

I'm not even going near that new word, 'permissible'.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I think I have been pretty clear, but if there is something you do not understand about my position, you can ask me.

Basically, I am now not even sure what we have been disagreeing about.

I'm not even going near that new word, 'permissible'.

The term 'morally permissible' is a common term, like 'morally impermissible', 'morally obligatory', 'morally wrong', and so on.

 

[ruby sparks]

I didn't say it wasn't.

I would rather stick with the words in the claims, that's all.

'Right', 'good' and 'just', for example.

We can deal with permissible later, if we ever finish discussing those.

And personally, I'm thinking 'good' has already gotten blurry and slippery (being relative).

One question. Are you a retributivist, or not?

 

[ruby sparks]

Angra, if you prefer me not to skip past permissible and obligatory, and I'm now thinking I shouldn't, then I would say that I agree that just retribution is morally permissible, though not obligatory.

There might be more to say and it might not be as simple as that, but that's a general caveat for almost every possible philosophical topic.

I don't know if I could say it and reasonably claim to be a retributivist, but my guess is that I could, in one way or another (eg by more often preferring retribution over forgiveness, but possibly in other ways) because most philosophical isms allow for a variety of stances and strengths. I could be a 6 or a 7 on a hypothetical scale of retributivism for example. Or I could say I take a mixed approach. Whether that last one could reasonably be called retributivism I'm not sure.

To the best of my memory, I had not read of a version of retributivism that seemed to say that punishment was merely one permissible option and that forgiveness (instead, I mean, when it's one or the other, which it very often isn't) was also a permissible option, but maybe I just had not read everything there is to read about retributivism or appreciated all the nuances.

My preferred claim would then be, "Just retribution is morally permissible but not obligatory".

'Of itself' is something I'd prefer to leave out, for reasons given. It may be that you do not actually consider, think carefully about or necessarily pay conscious attention to another reason, but there may still be one. For example, that something 'floats your boat', makes you happy, feels right, gives satisfaction or releases dopamine or some other chemical reward. Possibly also that something is adaptive. I have looked at dictionary definitions of the noun 'reason' and it can be taken to mean basis, cause or motive, and I'd include 'getting a personal reward' in that.

Leaving out 'of itself' also allows for the sort of consequentialism (consequences as causes and bases) which I set out in another thread.

 

[steve_bank]

Ruby, can you define just retribution? Would that be a proportional response?

I have been watching reruns of the old Gunsmoke TV show. The marshal in Dodge City represented the counterbalance to personal retribution creating order and civility.

 

[ruby sparks]

Ruby, can you define just retribution? Would that be a proportional response?

I have been watching reruns of the old Gunsmoke TV show. The marshal in Dodge City represented the counterbalance to personal retribution creating order and civility.

Setting aside any caveats and just assuming there is such a thing, omitting use of the word 'deemed', and noting that this is the forgiveness thread........

As I see it, it's punishment that someone deserves for committing a wrong.

Components leading up to it might include a fair, two-sided hearing (formal or informal), establishing the facts, establishing guilt, and deliberation.

As to the actual retribution, only punishing the guilty and yes, making the severity of the punishment proportional to the severity of the wrong.

Others might add to or change that.

 

[steve_bank]

Ruby, can you define just retribution? Would that be a proportional response?

I have been watching reruns of the old Gunsmoke TV show. The marshal in Dodge City represented the counterbalance to personal retribution creating order and civility.

Setting aside any caveats and just assuming there is such a thing, omitting use of the word 'deemed', and noting that this is the forgiveness thread........

As I see it, it's punishment that someone deserves for committing a wrong.

Components leading up to it might include a fair, two-sided hearing (formal or informal), establishing the facts, establishing guilt, and deliberation.

As to the actual retribution, only punishing the guilty and yes, making the severity of the punishment proportional to the severity of the wrong.

Others might add to or change that.

ok, thanks.

You would then consider a justice system just retribution? Without debating what just means.

 

[ruby sparks]

You would then consider a justice system just retribution? Without debating what just means.

I guess that would only be true if that system dispensed just retribution.

It wouldn't be true of all possible justice systems, eg an unfair or corrupt one, where either it wasn't always the guilty who got punished, or where the severity of the punishment for the same wrongs was greater or lesser for certain subgroups (eg if it depended on skin colour, ethnicity, gender, age, political persuasion, wealth, or member/citizen status).

There might also be issues around what that system defined as a wrong in the first place (eg homosexuality).

Also, a justice system might not only function on 'purely' moral grounds. Social control may be another function, even in non-totalitarian, democratic societies. As would merely channeling the retributive interests or sentiments of the particular people in its jurisdiction, or at least the majority of them, or alternatively the interests or sentiments of a minority that has sufficient power and influence. Politics in general could easily come into it, or money, or religion. We could say that all of those have moral aspects or considerations to them though.

Bear in mind that a justice system is only the formal, official context for such matters. All these issues are in principle relevant to human interactions and infringements generally (infidelity for example, which may or may not be illegal depending on the society/system). A milder example might be bullying that does not go as far as breaking a law, an even milder example might be queue-jumping. In such cases we might say the rules/codes are partly or fully informal, even if subject to many of the same considerations. Some of them may be subject to 'localised' rules, in 'mini-justice systems', such as apply in, say, a school or workplace but not the law courts. Others outside such contexts may be fully informal and unofficial. Or, they may not be reported to or discovered by the relevant authority. Justice dispensed by systems is limited to not only what incidents are deemed relevant to them but also to which cases come to their attention.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

An interesting question, and one which might be more specifically relevant to this particular thread might be whether a justice system can dispense forgiveness. I think that is generally considered to only be an option for individuals, and indeed possibly only the wronged individuals (I arguably can't forgive Ted Bundy or Hitler for example, if I was not a direct or indirect victim). That said, restorative justice systems can feature forgiveness, and possibly promote it to some extent (or merely put it on the table as a consideration) in some cases, though it's not generally a necessary component, and is merely an option for the wronged party.

That said, as far as I know, dispensing forgiveness (sometimes called a pardon) is or was a power granted to those 'external' third parties deemed 'wise leaders' (eg kings in ancient times) and is of course given to some gods ('superkings') that are believed to exist, albeit sometimes any wrong against anyone is said to be a wrong against that god, thereby supposedly making that god a relevant interested party.

The even more interesting question might therefore be whether an external party or a state justice system should (ought to) be able to dispense forgiveness, independently of the wronged party (eg for social reasons). After all, it seems uncontroversial that they or it can dispense retribution, independently of the wronged party, presumably for social reasons.

Note that non-retribution (or eschewing retribution), even if it were a permissible option, is not necessarily forgiveness. Whether it's identical to a pardon is also discussable. I don't think they are always used identically.

Note also that forgiveness can and often does come after or alongside retribution. When it's a binary choice, one precludes the other.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I don't know if I could say it and reasonably claim to be a retributivist, but my guess is that I could, in one way or another (eg by more often preferring retribution over forgiveness, but possibly in other ways) because most philosophical isms allow for a variety of stances and strengths. I could be a 6 or a 7 on a hypothetical scale of retributivism for example. Or I could say I take a mixed approach. Whether that last one could reasonably be called retributivism I'm not sure.

A minimal version would just say that wrongdoers deserve punishment in retribution for what they did, with no further conditions.

'Of itself' is something I'd prefer to leave out, for reasons given.

That was/is a misunderstanding. That was about being good, not being obligatory or even permissible.

An interesting question, and one which might be more specifically relevant to this particular thread might be whether a justice system can dispense forgiveness. I think that is generally considered to only be an option for individuals, and indeed possibly only the wronged individuals (I arguably can't forgive Ted Bundy or Hitler for example, if I was not a direct or indirect victim).

I think as a practical matter, due to limited resources and things like that, it is permissible to set up a system in which some wrongdoers are not pursued, but as you say, that is not the same as forgiveness.

Now, sometimes, it is even permissible to agree not to punish them (rather than just letting them go due to a lack of resources), e.g., they make a deal with the prosecutor to hand over evidence that gets some much worse wrongdoers convicted. There is the question of whether that is a kind of forgiveness. That does look in a way like forgiveness, but being a government act rather than a personal one, this looks to me more as a legal issue, without the psychological context of forgiveness. In any event, this sort of thing - like, say, presidential pardons - does not involve forgiveness from other people, e.g., the victims if there are any.

 

[ruby sparks]

A minimal version would just say that wrongdoers deserve punishment in retribution for what they did, with no further conditions.

That implies (possibly by omission) that wrongdoers only deserve punishment or it's at least ambiguous about that. Maybe, a wrongdoer deserves forgiveness instead (or as well).

That was/is a misunderstanding. That was about being good, not being obligatory or even permissible.

Ok.

I think as a practical matter, due to limited resources and things like that, it is permissible to set up a system in which some wrongdoers are not pursued, but as you say, that is not the same as forgiveness.

Now, sometimes, it is even permissible to agree not to punish them (rather than just letting them go due to a lack of resources), e.g., they make a deal with the prosecutor to hand over evidence that gets some much worse wrongdoers convicted. There is the question of whether that is a kind of forgiveness. That does look in a way like forgiveness, but being a government act rather than a personal one, this looks to me more as a legal issue, without the psychological context of forgiveness. In any event, this sort of thing - like, say, presidential pardons - does not involve forgiveness from other people, e.g., the victims if there are any.

I think I agree with all that. And like you, I don't think the 'cutting a deal' is forgiveness, in any way, though I agree it sort of looks like it in some ways. My guess is it's merely non-retribution.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

That implies (possibly by omission) that wrongdoers only deserve punishment or it's at least ambiguous about that. Maybe, a wrongdoer deserves forgiveness instead (or as well).

I don't think a wrongdoer can deserve forgiveness (it's more like it's freely given), unless perhaps you are talking about something that happens after the fact, so that e.g., a wrongdoer later sincerely changes his ways, and so he no longer deserves to be punished - though it is debatable whether that's the same as deserving forgiveness.

But that aside, to be clear I am talking about punishment that might be as light as to be called on it, be told that he was being immoral, and so on.

 

[ruby sparks]

I don't think a wrongdoer can deserve forgiveness..

It's been pretty obvious for quite a while that you think that, probably partly because of your strong belief in free will and for other reasons to do with what you think morality is, and other things that are just about you and your propositional attitudes.

Go ahead, speak for yourself, and on behalf of all those who would agree with you. That's always a permissible response.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I don't think a wrongdoer can deserve forgiveness..

It's been pretty obvious for quite a while that you think that, probably partly because of your strong belief in free will and for other reasons to do with what you think morality is, and other things that are just about you and your propositional attitudes.

Go ahead, speak for yourself, and on behalf of all those who would agree with you. That's always a permissible response.

We are talking about a wrongdoer that did not do any kind of change after the wrongdoing, so there seems to be no basis for deserving something positive. Why do you think the wrongdoer might deserve forgiveness?

 

[ruby sparks]

But that aside, to be clear I am talking about punishment that might be as light as to be called on it, be told that he was being immoral, and so on.

'What you did was morally wrong, but you deserve forgivenesss instead of punishment' would be fine. Telling someone a fact about the action itself, if it is a fact, is a separate issue, if you're not also telling them they deserve to be punished. There has to be a wrongdoing, otherwise there's nothing to forgive. A human who understood this and was merely told, 'I forgive you for doing X' would know that already.

 

[ruby sparks]

We are talking about a wrongdoer that did not do any kind of change after the wrongdoing

Are we? I wasn't aware of that, or that we were necessarily allowing time for that to be the case.

Why do you think the wrongdoer might deserve forgiveness?

Ok so all of these are to be prefixed with the phrase, "it's a wrong, but....."

1. To err is human (that's possibly the biggie).

2. I like forgiving, and I also think it's the morally good thing to do in this situation.

3. Forgiving them might be better for me.

4. Being forgiven might be better for them (might bring about positive change in them).

5. If 5, being forgiven might be better for people they subsequently interact with.

6. The mitigating antecedent circumstances allow/explain/excuse it.

I could go on, I think. An act of forgiveness might involve one or more of those, or other reasons.

The bases are essentially of the same or similar type as for retribution. A certain, alternative response to a wrong (or a deemed wrong) is deemed to be a permissible option, in the judgement of the victim.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Why do you think the wrongdoer might deserve forgiveness?

Ok so all of these are to be prefixed with the phrase, "it's a wrong, but....."

1. To err is human (that's possibly the biggie).

2. I like forgiving, and I also think it's the morally good thing to do in this situation.

3. Forgiving them might be better for me.

4. Being forgiven might be better for them (might bring about positive change in them).

5. If 5, being forgiven might be better for people they subsequently interact with.

6. The mitigating antecedent circumstances allow/explain/excuse it.

I could go on, I think. An act of forgiveness might involve one or more of those, or other reasons.

The bases are essentially of the same or similar type as for retribution. A certain, alternative response to a wrong (or a deemed wrong) is deemed to be a permissible option, in the judgement of the victim.

1. is true in the sense that humans are fallible. But how does being fallible make a human deserve a reward, in particular forgiveness?
2. What you like is irrelevant as to what the wrongdoer deserves. As to whether it is 'the morally good' thing to do, suggests a moral obligation, albeit with an odd wording. If that is what you meant, why is it obligatory? If it is not what you meant, then why is it good in some sense, and how is that related to what the wrongdoer deserves?
3. True, but irrelevant as to whether the wrongdoer deserves. What the wrongdoer deserves is a property of the wrongdoer, not of you.
4. That might be true, but why would they deserve what is better for them, given that they behaved wrongfully?
5. You mean if 4? Sure, it might, and that would be a reason to forgive them. However, that would not be a reason to think they deserve forgiveness.
6. If they allow/excuse it, they did not act immorally, so there seems to be nothing to forgive. If they explain it but do not excuse it/allow it, then they behaved wrongfully, and that the behavior is explained does not provide a good reason to think they deserve forgiveness (every behavior is explained, even that of serial killers, e.g., the explanation is they like it).

An act of forgiveness might involve many things. My objection is to the claim that they deserve it.