FORGIVENESS

[ruby sparks]

Claim: forgiveness can be as valid and right and just an option as the alternative, retribution, in response to what is deemed a wrong, depending on circumstances.

Crucially, it can be part of a mixed strategy, and also be adaptive (help to maximise reproductive success).


So what is forgiveness?

I bet it's complicated. First of all, does a pure version ever exist? I think so. I think we can fully and truly forgive. At which point, I am suggesting, when there's a binary choice, retribution is off the table, no longer relevant. There is no point in saying 'retribution would have been the right response', even if it was deemed and agreed that there was an initial wrong, because forgiveness was deemed right instead. Someone might say, 'well I think retribution would have been the right thing and as such there remains an injustice that deserves retribution' but that's just them, and if they were not party to the actions, it is arguably not necessarily morally up to them, except where moral laws in a society dictate retribution and the thing that was deemed wrong is reported to or discovered by the authorities, which is not always the case, since there are very many cases where both the action and the response remain personal and private to the parties directly involved.

I doubt that forgiveness is often pure of itself though, or always freely given. First, I think it's mostly conditional, in one way or another. Second, I think that it will generally only be partial. As such, we may partly forgive and partly feel that there was nonetheless something that deserved retribution.

It has been said, by neuroscience, that forgiveness, as a brain process, acts (literally biochemically) to inhibit retributive urges. That would suggest that we are in the first instance predisposed towards retribution. If that were true (I don't think anyone is certain) then retributivists might then say that retribution is 'the more natural response'. And I might say, so what? It would only be (or only be more often) the natural first response. Forgiveness would still also be a response, and natural.

Oh, perhaps I should offer a definition of forgiveness:

"To forgive is to either not blame or not be angry with someone for something that person has done, and as a result, not punish or want to punish them for that thing."

I'm not saying that is the correct or only definition. Forgiveness is a slippery concept. It seems easier to say what it is not.

In a nutshell I am saying that one thing it is not is retribution. So, I might simply say:

"Forgiveness is an alternative to retribution."

'Absolve' might be a closely-related word. Also, 'pardon' except that in some legal usages that is not quite the same.

Forgiveness might literally require forgetting (there is the phrase, 'forgive and forget') but not the forgetting that the action happened, only perhaps the actual forgetting of the initial urge (if there was one) to punish that might have been associated with the action or the memory of it. Were that not to be completely forgotten, retributivists might be right in saying there could still be a case for a lingering injustice, or at least the sense of it, I think.

For that to happen, it would seem that the bio/electro-chemical processes involved in the forgiveness would have to have fully 'reversed or erased' the initial retributive ones, if they were there. I think that may be a big ask, of a brain. It would involve the latter not being encoded in memory.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Speaking personally I don't know if I've ever forgiven anyone for what I thought was wrong to do or say. I've certainly moved past the event and have had good adult relations with those persons. We talk and interact and do things together, but forgiveness never comes up.

In some of those cases there have been apologies, which certainly helped, but for the most part the experience simply became unimportant. Other more important things came into play which had nothing to do with our collective emotional states. Forgiveness did not matter.

 

[fromderinside]

forgiveness is a warm felt blanket given to/by someone for comfort. Works on feelings, warming them.

 

[James Brown]

Any fool knows men and women think differently at times, but the biggest difference is this. Men forget, but never forgive; women forgive, but never forget.

--Robert Jordan

 

[Bomb#20]

Claim: forgiveness can be as valid and right and just an option as the alternative, retribution, in response to what is deemed a wrong, depending on circumstances.

Crucially, it can be part of a mixed strategy, and also be adaptive (help to maximise reproductive success).


So what is forgiveness?

I bet it's complicated. First of all, does a pure version ever exist? I think so. I think we can fully and truly forgive. At which point, I am suggesting, when there's a binary choice, retribution is off the table, no longer relevant. There is no point in saying 'retribution would have been the right response', even if it was deemed and agreed that there was an initial wrong, because forgiveness was deemed right instead.

That sounds off to me.

As you say, crucially, forgiveness can be part of a mixed strategy. What makes forgiveness an adaptive strategy is that it lets people break out of cycles of retaliation, where each thinks the other has wronged him. To put it in game-theoretic Prisoner's Dilemma terms, tit-for-tat is an effective strategy that does well in a wide variety of ecosystems, but it's susceptible to a failure mode where X cooperates and Y defects, so then X defects and Y cooperates, and so on, and each perpetually feels aggrieved and justified in punishing the other. But when at least one player sometimes cooperates even though the other just defected, they can switch out of the failure mode into an all-cooperation state that makes them both better off. But if X cooperates again but Y just defects again, forgiveness is not adaptive -- it's just a recipe for X to perpetually suffer while Y perpetually prospers by taking advantage of X.

Forgiveness is an invitation to the other person to reach for a better relationship than what you have. It only works if the other person is amenable to doing his part to maintain a better relationship. You have to be willing to meet each other half way. A famous expert on forgiveness reputedly said "If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also". But when Peter asked the same expert how many times he should forgive, "Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.". Well, if Peter's brother sins against him seven times, and Peter forgives him seven times, and his brother does it again, then when Peter forgives him the eighth time he'd better expect his brother to keep doing it the next 482 times. He's at a point where it makes sense to say 'retribution would have been the right response'. When people are forgiven they need to read into it a warning label about what will happen if they don't reform.

Jesus had it right the first time. You only have two cheeks.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Claim: forgiveness can be as valid and right and just an option as the alternative, retribution, in response to what is deemed a wrong, depending on circumstances.

Suppose I were to reply, hypothetically: "You are mistaken, it is not the case that forgiveness can be as valid and right and just an option as the alternative, retribution, in response to what is deemed a wrong, depending on circumstances."

Would my reply be incorrect?

 

[ruby sparks]

Claim: forgiveness can be as valid and right and just an option as the alternative, retribution, in response to what is deemed a wrong, depending on circumstances.

Suppose I were to reply, hypothetically: "You are mistaken, it is not the case that forgiveness can be as valid and right and just an option as the alternative, retribution, in response to what is deemed a wrong, depending on circumstances."

Would my reply be incorrect?

I would have to say yes.

But I might ask you to demonstrate where I am mistaken.

 

[ruby sparks]

Claim: forgiveness can be as valid and right and just an option as the alternative, retribution, in response to what is deemed a wrong, depending on circumstances.

Crucially, it can be part of a mixed strategy, and also be adaptive (help to maximise reproductive success).


So what is forgiveness?

I bet it's complicated. First of all, does a pure version ever exist? I think so. I think we can fully and truly forgive. At which point, I am suggesting, when there's a binary choice, retribution is off the table, no longer relevant. There is no point in saying 'retribution would have been the right response', even if it was deemed and agreed that there was an initial wrong, because forgiveness was deemed right instead.

That sounds off to me.

As you say, crucially, forgiveness can be part of a mixed strategy. What makes forgiveness an adaptive strategy is that it lets people break out of cycles of retaliation, where each thinks the other has wronged him. To put it in game-theoretic Prisoner's Dilemma terms, tit-for-tat is an effective strategy that does well in a wide variety of ecosystems, but it's susceptible to a failure mode where X cooperates and Y defects, so then X defects and Y cooperates, and so on, and each perpetually feels aggrieved and justified in punishing the other. But when at least one player sometimes cooperates even though the other just defected, they can switch out of the failure mode into an all-cooperation state that makes them both better off. But if X cooperates again but Y just defects again, forgiveness is not adaptive -- it's just a recipe for X to perpetually suffer while Y perpetually prospers by taking advantage of X.

Forgiveness is an invitation to the other person to reach for a better relationship than what you have. It only works if the other person is amenable to doing his part to maintain a better relationship. You have to be willing to meet each other half way. A famous expert on forgiveness reputedly said "If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also". But when Peter asked the same expert how many times he should forgive, "Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.". Well, if Peter's brother sins against him seven times, and Peter forgives him seven times, and his brother does it again, then when Peter forgives him the eighth time he'd better expect his brother to keep doing it the next 482 times. He's at a point where it makes sense to say 'retribution would have been the right response'. When people are forgiven they need to read into it a warning label about what will happen if they don't reform.

Jesus had it right the first time. You only have two cheeks.

I think it's fair to say that in game theory as in life, the other person's strategy (or merely behaviour) is an important factor, and we do best by accurately working out what the other person's strategy is (or likely behaviour will be) and adjusting our own strategy/behaviour accordingly, yes.

So I think that would make forgiveness a useful/adaptive element in a strategy, but only in some cases, yes.

So I agree.

But I can see why you think what I said was off (and maybe it was).

Now, maybe I would better have said that in an individual instance, a different action would be more useful/adaptive. But what I was trying to say was that in any particular instance where a binary choice has already been made, retribution is at that point not a consideration. If the other person defects/slaps again, you might have to reconsider.

I was mainly trying, perhaps clumsily, to address what I thought Angra had said in another thread, that forgiveness does not take away the fact that retribution would still have been a good thing of itself, as if there were a residue of unjustness. I'm saying there isn't, if it's true forgiveness. Now there might still have been a moral injustice (a wrong, a transgression). I only mean the injustice residue of not retributing specifically, in other words of the response. If I say/decide/feel that the just/right/good response was to forgive rather than obtain (or even want) retribution, then that's a done deal, at that point. You can't choose both.

If he or she slaps me again, all bets are off.

It's probably more complicated than that, perhaps because 'true, complete forgiveness' is either very rare or never actually happens.

At the very least, a past transgression is going to be remembered, and taken into account next time. Does that mean the first forgiveness was not in fact complete? I'm not sure. Could it be complete and provisional? I think so.

In other words, even full/complete forgiveness is conditional (unless one has a very poor memory or is a doormat).

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Claim: forgiveness can be as valid and right and just an option as the alternative, retribution, in response to what is deemed a wrong, depending on circumstances.

Suppose I were to reply, hypothetically: "You are mistaken, it is not the case that forgiveness can be as valid and right and just an option as the alternative, retribution, in response to what is deemed a wrong, depending on circumstances."

Would my reply be incorrect?

I would have to say yes.

But I might ask you to demonstrate where I am mistaken.

No need, as I think B20 gives a better reply.

My point is actually very different. In saying that my reply would be incorrect, you implicitly realize that there is a fact of the matter as to whether forgiveness can be as valid and right and just an option as the alternative, retribution, in response to what is deemed a wrong, depending on circumstances.

In other words, you realize intuitively that there are moral facts (if there weren't, there would be no fact of the matter as to whether my reply is incorrect).

 

[ruby sparks]

I would have to say yes.

But I might ask you to demonstrate where I am mistaken.

No need, as I think B20 gives a better reply.

My point is actually very different. In saying that my reply would be incorrect, you implicitly realize that there is a fact of the matter as to whether forgiveness can be as valid and right and just an option as the alternative, retribution, in response to what is deemed a wrong, depending on circumstances.

In other words, you realize intuitively that there are moral facts (if there weren't, there would be no fact of the matter as to whether my reply is incorrect).

There may be a fact of the matter (about morals), but it could be that morality is relative, or consequentialist, or depending on circumstances or possibly even individuals, and that neither retribution or forgiveness are, of themselves right/good/just/valid. That might be a moral fact (fact about morals). I think it is.

There is imo no fact that forgiveness (or retribution) is right/good or wrong/bad of itself, even in a single instance where there is a binary choice.

That's your claim.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

There may be a fact of the matter (about morals), but it could be that morality is relative, or consequentialist, or depending on circumstances or possibly even individuals, and that neither retribution or forgiveness are, of themselves right/good/just/valid. That might be a moral fact (fact about morals). I think it is.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'relative', but other than that, great. At least you agree there is a fact of the matter.

There is imo no fact that forgiveness (or retribution) is right/good or wrong/bad of itself, even in a single instance where there is a binary choice.

You seem to be conflating 'right' with 'good'.
Anyway, is your position that forgiveness or retribution can only be good or bad as means to ends?

That's your claim.

No, you do not seem to be using the words in the same sense I am.

 

[steve_bank]

For me forgiveness is about social coherence and personal mental health.

I expect most have known someone who is always negative and at war with something. Trump a prime example.

For me now it is never perfect but forgiveness is the only sane way to live. Maintaining a sense of retribution feeds on itself over time. Something gets you going at work for something someone dis you and it takes on a life of its own in your head.

If I had a blowup with somebody in the morning by the afternoon it was ancient history. I moved on.

The old saying goes when out for revenge dig two graves one for your enemy and one for you. I always took it as more metaphor for conflict in general. It has truth.

 

[ruby sparks]

I'm not sure what you mean by 'relative'

I meant what is usually meant by moral relativism. I included it as one of a number of possibilities.

You seem to be conflating 'right' with 'good'.

They are commonly used as synonyms and in fact the dictionary definition of one is often the other. I know they aren't necessarily identical.

Anyway, is your position that forgiveness or retribution can only be good or bad as means to ends?

If I understand the question, which I'm not sure I do, my instinctive answer is no. I doubt that it's that simple very often, if ever, that either of them is only or fully good or bad.

No, you do not seem to be using the words in the same sense I am.

Here's your claim: "Just retribution is a good in an of itself." That's been up for grabs the whole time, in at least three threads. So far, it seems to be a matter of what is deemed to be the case by different people in specific circumstances. Most relevantly to this thread, when people eschew retribution and opt for forgiveness instead, it appears they disagree.

 

[ruby sparks]

The old saying goes when out for revenge dig two graves one for your enemy and one for you.

Indeed.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I meant what is usually meant by moral relativism. I included it as one of a number of possibilities.

There is no standard definition. Several are in use.

They are commonly used as synonyms and in fact the dictionary definition of one is often the other. I know they aren't necessarily identical.

Regardless, you are conflating two very different distinctions. That is partly why you misunderstand my posts.

The distinctions permissible/impermissible behavior and good/bad thing are very different. For example, it is a bad thing that humans suffer in ways they do not deserve (e.g., someone gets cancer), but that does not involve any sort of impermissible behavior. Now the word 'right' is ambiguous, because sometimes it's used to mean 'obligatory', and others 'permissible'. But in any case, a distinction right/wrong is very different from good/bad, in this context.
Again, consider the king example in the other thread. It would be a good thing that the perpetrator suffers for what he did. However, it would be a bad thing that many people suffer horribly in unjust and predictable retaliation. So, it would be wrong to bring about just retribution, even if that is a good thing, because in that context, predictably there will be a very bad thing coming after that in revenge.

If I understand the question, which I'm not sure I do, my instinctive answer is no. I doubt that it's that simple very often, if ever, that either of them is only or fully good or bad.

Okay, so if you believe that forgiveness can be good, and not just as a means to an end, then you're saying that it's a good in and of itself, at least sometimes.

Here's your claim: "Just retribution is a good in an of itself." That's been up for grabs the whole time, in at least three threads. So far, it seems to be a matter of what is deemed to be the case by people, in specific circumstances. Most relevantly to this thread, when people eschew retribution and opt for forgiveness instead, it appears they disagree.

I don't believe you understand what I say (as evidence by persistent misrepresentation). But anyway, why would you think they disagree?
It may be better for the person to forgive than to exact retribution. This is not to say that the retribution itself would be bad. It would be good, but again I am not suggesting it is generally obligatory to bring about that good (or other specific good, usually); it is normally (though not always) permissible.

 

[ruby sparks]

Okay, so if you believe that forgiveness can be good, and not just as a means to an end, then you're saying that it's a good in and of itself, at least sometimes.

I tend not to think either forgiveness or retribution are good (or right, or just, or correct) 'of themselves'. I've already said that several times.

But anyway, why would you think they disagree?

Could be any one of a number of reasons, depending on the circumstances, including several already offered.

It may be better for the person to forgive than to exact retribution. This is not to say that the retribution itself would be bad. It would be good, but again I am not suggesting it is generally obligatory to bring about that good (or other specific good, usually); it is normally (though not always) permissible.

Obviously 'good' and 'bad' are relative terms. That goes without saying. 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 option for responses to wrongdoings, that's my substantive point. Would you disagree?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I tend not to think either forgiveness or retribution are good (or right, or just, or correct) 'of themselves'. I've already said that several times.

There is a misunderstanding here. What I meant is that you and I are using the words differently, and from your description, you do believe that forgiveness is good in an of itself, at least in some instances.

Could be any one of a number of reasons, depending on the circumstances, including several already offered.

No, my question is: why would you think they disagree? Why would you have the belief that they disagree?

I think that just retribution is a good in an of itself. But I do not always seek retribution. And I sometimes forgive. Your assessment that people who eschew retribution and forgive disagree is not warranted.

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?

First, I would disagree with the question, as it presents this as an exhaustive choice. In reality, it is not. In fact, in plenty of cases, people neither seek just retribution nor forgive. They just let things go because seeking retribution would be either unsuccessful or too costly to be worth the effort. For example, they were mugged and would like to see the mugger punished, but...they reckon it is a lot of paperwork to denounce the mugging, and it is almost impossible that the perpetrators would be punished. Or they got hurt by a bus driver making a bad maneuver, but it's again too much of an effort with low chances of success, things like that.

Second, as 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.

 

[ruby sparks]

There is a misunderstanding here. What I meant is that you and I are using the words differently, and from your description, you do believe that forgiveness is good in an of itself, at least in some instances.

I'm not entirely comfortable saying either are, but let me perhaps put it this way, it can be a good (or right, or valid, or correct) or as bad, invalid, incorrect or wrong, of itself, as much as retribution can, depending on circumstances. In many ways, that's my OP claim in a nutshell.

No, my question is: why would you think they disagree? Why would you have the belief that they disagree?

I already replied on that. It could be any one of a number of reasons, depending on the circumstances, including several already offered.

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 think that just retribution is a good in an of itself. But I do not always seek retribution. And I sometimes forgive. Your assessment that people who eschew retribution and forgive disagree is not warranted.

I thought it would be obvious I was talking about disagreement in a particular situation.

First, I would disagree with the question, as it presents this as an exhaustive choice. In reality, it is not. In fact, in plenty of cases, people neither seek just retribution nor forgive. They just let things go because seeking retribution would be either unsuccessful or too costly to be worth the effort. For example, they were mugged and would like to see the mugger punished, but...they reckon it is a lot of paperwork to denounce the mugging, and it is almost impossible that the perpetrators would be punished. Or they got hurt by a bus driver making a bad maneuver, but it's again too much of an effort with low chances of success, things like that.

Situations where people do not choose between the two are irrelevant and citing them is merely avoiding answering the valid question.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I already answered on that.

Recap?

I thought it would be obvious I was talking about disagreement in a particular circumstances.

I'm afraid I'm not following.

Situations where people do not choose between the two are irrelevant and merely avoiding the issue.

Why? I'm pointing out that generally, that is not an exclusive choice.
Moreover, you cut off the second part of my reply and say that I am avoiding the issue. Why?

Here goes again: as 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.

What am I avoiding?

 

[ruby sparks]

Recap?

"It could be any one of a number of reasons, depending on the circumstances, including several already offered".

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.

Why? I'm pointing out that generally, that is not an exclusive choice.

It is sometimes.

What am I avoiding?

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

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.

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 severity scale we go. That said, a very few people seem to be capable of forgiving the very worst things.

Infidelity is one that is commonly discussed in relation to forgiveness. But there are even much more mild ones. Many would not even say that one was mild.