ruby sparks
Contributor
1. is true in the sense that humans are fallible. But how does being fallible make a human deserve a reward, in particular forgiveness?ruby sparks said:Ok so all of these are to be prefixed with the phrase, "it's a wrong, but....."Angra Mainyu said:Why do you think the wrongdoer might deserve forgiveness?
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.
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).
I would be happy to answer all those, and I may do if you still want me to, but I think there's a fundamental issue here that needs to be addressed first, otherwise I'll just be wasting our time answering those questions and they won't make sense (to you). The fundamental issue is that you make a claim that I don't yet accept, which is not only (a) that it is a moral fact that a wrongdoer deserves to be punished (and as far as you are concerned that does not go away even if there is forgiveness instead) and crucially, and more controversially imo, (b) that this is a moral fact that is external to and independent of the person(s) deeming to either forgive or punish.
If someone (eg you) believes both those things, (a) & (b), then no answer from me can suffice for you, because an answer from me would only ever be about what the wronged person or wronged persons, or the humans observing (who may largely agree one way or the other) deem to be what is deserved, however they do that (and essentially it could be instinctive in the end, which might be the ultimate answer to your initial question) and that may not in some cases be punishment, it may be forgiveness instead.
An act of forgiveness might involve many things. My objection is to the claim that they deserve it.
Indeed. And my objection is to the claim that they necessarily deserve punishment. And essentially, I could be asking you pretty much the same questions you are asking me. And if your bottom-line answer is 'it feels instinctively right' I'll say that about forgiveness. And if your answer boils down to saying 'it's an independent moral fact' then I would be very sceptical about that. I think that nearly everything we are and have been discussing may now revolve around this issue that has come up regarding your claim of independence.
If you accepted that both deserving punishment and deserving forgiveness were independent moral facts, depending on circumstances, it would be helpful for you, and be one way to get the fly of forgiveness out of the ointment of your claims, but that would still involve the claim that there are independent moral facts, which at this point I am very sceptical about. Further, even if there were, there would have to be either a vast number of specific versions of them, given that moral judgements are obviously relative to so many, many things, and combinations of them, and fluctuations in them over time (at which point it would surely be a better descriptor to say they are relative) or so vague and general that they are more or less useless for determining the right answer in any given situation. One way to not be wrong is to merely be sufficiently vague.
Last edited: