How is asking for Forgiveness Moral?

[Ramaraksha]

Religions are happy to promise to would-be converts that their nice God will be happy to forgive your transgressions - just cry some croc tears of remorse and God will forgive and off you go enjoy heaven!
What amazes me is the lack of discussion on such ideas
First of all, the apology should go to the victim, not to a 3rd party(God). It is not God who bore the loss, it is the victim who suffered and is still suffering. Isn't it the first duty, if one is truly remorseful, to make up the loss that the victim has suffered? Yet, we hear nothing about the victim in the above scenario - it is like the criminal is brought before the Judge, the criminal cries, says he is sorry and the judge lets him go? How is that justice? How is this moral?
Something like this happened in Penn State - the pedophile was found out several years ago. What did the administration do? Well, they called him in and talked to him. Guess who was missing? The victim(s) - the boy or boys who were abused by this monster. Did the guy cry and ask for forgiveness? promise he will never do it again? And the administration just forgave him! how nice! Is that God? That is his justice? Once let go, the pedophile just went back to what he was doing - continued to abuse and added more victims to his tally!
The victim presents a problem doesn't he though? The victim might not be in such a hurry to forgive. The victim will demand compensation & there lies the problem. Pay back the debt or just cry some croc tears of remorse? Which one is faster, easier? Of course the latter & therein lies the attraction. Hinduism teaches the former - it stress Reincarnation - you must come back to pay the debts and that is why it is out of favor
Lastly, we have all made resolutions - to lose weight, stop drinking, eat more healthy - were we all lying to ourselves? Of course not - some of us genuinely meant to change but resolving something and doing something are two totally different things. It is easy to beg and cry and say i have changed, i am remorseful, i won't do it again but much, much harder to actually put that into practice
The pedophile who begged and cried and swore never to do it again might actually have meant what he said, might actually have tried to change but once let off, he found his urges hard to resist
I see none of this being discussed in classes that teach these issues - has religion managed to brainwash even the best of them?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Religions are happy to promise to would-be converts that their nice God will be happy to forgive your transgressions - just cry some croc tears of remorse and God will forgive and off you go enjoy heaven!
What amazes me is the lack of discussion on such ideas
First of all, the apology should go to the victim, not to a 3rd party(God). It is not God who bore the loss, it is the victim who suffered and is still suffering. Isn't it the first duty, if one is truly remorseful, to make up the loss that the victim has suffered? Yet, we hear nothing about the victim in the above scenario - it is like the criminal is brought before the Judge, the criminal cries, says he is sorry and the judge lets him go? How is that justice? How is this moral?
Something like this happened in Penn State - the pedophile was found out several years ago. What did the administration do? Well, they called him in and talked to him. Guess who was missing? The victim(s) - the boy or boys who were abused by this monster. Did the guy cry and ask for forgiveness? promise he will never do it again? And the administration just forgave him! how nice! Is that God? That is his justice? Once let go, the pedophile just went back to what he was doing - continued to abuse and added more victims to his tally!
The victim presents a problem doesn't he though? The victim might not be in such a hurry to forgive. The victim will demand compensation & there lies the problem. Pay back the debt or just cry some croc tears of remorse? Which one is faster, easier? Of course the latter & therein lies the attraction. Hinduism teaches the former - it stress Reincarnation - you must come back to pay the debts and that is why it is out of favor
Lastly, we have all made resolutions - to lose weight, stop drinking, eat more healthy - were we all lying to ourselves? Of course not - some of us genuinely meant to change but resolving something and doing something are two totally different things. It is easy to beg and cry and say i have changed, i am remorseful, i won't do it again but much, much harder to actually put that into practice
The pedophile who begged and cried and swore never to do it again might actually have meant what he said, might actually have tried to change but once let off, he found his urges hard to resist
I see none of this being discussed in classes that teach these issues - has religion managed to brainwash even the best of them?

I'm not sure what classes you're talking about, but sure, those religious promises involve deep moral confusion. Part of it is due to their belief that immoral behavior is primarily an offense against God.

Still, there are some differences. For example, Catholicism holds that even after a person is forgiven for her offenses, she still needs to do time in Purgatory - she just avoids Hell.

(e.g., see http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-te...epub/OEBPS/20-paragraph21.xhtml#subchapter130 )

 

[BH]

I believe that a sincerely repentant person should be forgiven by his or her victim, but in a general proverbial sense, for small wrongs that do not actually harm anyone or does very, very, very little harm. For example, someone over at my house knocks over a decoration I had on the coffee table and breaks it. Honest mistake, it was cheap and didn't cost much and had no sentimental value. Forgive and let it go.

Someone throws a fit and murders someone. No matter how sincere the repentance is that person should still be punished. Something that bad simply cannot be allowed to be forgiven.

 

[Ramaraksha]

Angra: Like sitting in some jail? Our ideas of justice are still primitive it seems - how does that help anyone? The reason one is forgiven, i assume by the victim, is because one has made up the loss - if i break something valuable, it is my duty to buy a new one - make up the loss
The concept of hell is disturbing - how does torture help anyone? Is Hitler being tortured? and it helps the victims, how? In what manner are they comforted? Hell is vengeance, not justice. It shows that these ideas came out of primitive times

 

[Ramaraksha]

I don't think repentance is the end of the issue - repentance is the start - yes you have realized your mistake, but should you not be doing something about it? And that is what religions avoid - just repent, cry some croc tears and you are done?
Suppose your child breaks his friends toy - he is crying and remorseful for what he has done. But is that the end of the story? Do you not teach him that he needs to buy his friend a replacement toy, the money coming out of his allowance? That is the right thing to do

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Angra: Like sitting in some jail? Our ideas of justice are still primitive it seems - how does that help anyone? The reason one is forgiven, i assume by the victim, is because one has made up the loss - if i break something valuable, it is my duty to buy a new one - make up the loss
The concept of hell is disturbing - how does torture help anyone? Is Hitler being tortured? and it helps the victims, how? In what manner are they comforted? Hell is vengeance, not justice. It shows that these ideas came out of primitive times

I'm not sure it's like sitting in some jail, Catholics as far as I know are not specific enough. I'm inclined to think they'd say it's not like jail in the sense that people are somehow (don't ask me how) "purified" throught the process. But it does sound like jail in that they still need to serve time.

The concept of Hell is disturbing because it's infinite punishment, and it's not deserved. But sometimes, punishment is deserved even if the victims are not comforted. The victim of a murderer is already dead, but the murderer still deserves punishment.

 

[bilby]

Angra: Like sitting in some jail? Our ideas of justice are still primitive it seems - how does that help anyone? The reason one is forgiven, i assume by the victim, is because one has made up the loss - if i break something valuable, it is my duty to buy a new one - make up the loss
The concept of hell is disturbing - how does torture help anyone? Is Hitler being tortured? and it helps the victims, how? In what manner are they comforted? Hell is vengeance, not justice. It shows that these ideas came out of primitive times

I'm not sure it's like sitting in some jail, Catholics as far as I know are not specific enough. I'm inclined to think they'd say it's not like jail in the sense that people are somehow (don't ask me how) "purified" throught the process. But it does sound like jail in that they still need to serve time.

The concept of Hell is disturbing because it's infinite punishment, and it's not deserved. But sometimes, punishment is deserved even if the victims are not comforted. The victim of a murderer is already dead, but the murderer still deserves punishment.

A penalty, sure; to deter others, or to discourage (or even render impossible) a repeat of the crime. But 'punishment' to me implies that the suffering of the murderer is somehow beneficial to someone - although it is not at all clear how anyone is benefited by his suffering.

Given that most criminals expect (at the time of their crime) that they will not be caught, deterrence is weak; And given that loss of liberty is, in itself, highly undesirable, it seems that there is no reason to make prison unpleasant, beyond the inherent unpleasantness of losing one's liberty.

The same is even more true of afterlife punishments; They cannot be observed by the living, and so can only have a very weak deterrent effect; and the criminal himself is in no position to lapse into recidivism.

Punishment is a means of social control that evolved to deter unfairness in social animals of limited intellect; Modern society has outgrown it* - indeed it is arguable that civilisation is the replacement of punishment with justice. By having a neutral party decide the penalties for transgressions, we break the vicious circle of revenge and counter-revenge (feuds, vendettas and the like), at the price of leaving victims always feeling that perpetrators got off lightly. That feeling stems from the evolved desire to harshly punish even slight transgressions, and it is yet another of our natural responses that we need to temper, if we are to remain civilised.















*May not apply in some states.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

A penalty, sure; to deter others, or to discourage (or even render impossible) a repeat of the crime. But 'punishment' to me implies that the suffering of the murderer is somehow beneficial to someone - although it is not at all clear how anyone is benefited by his suffering.

I don't see why punishment implies someone benefits.

Given that most criminals expect (at the time of their crime) that they will not be caught, deterrence is weak; And given that loss of liberty is, in itself, highly undesirable, it seems that there is no reason to make prison unpleasant, beyond the inherent unpleasantness of losing one's liberty.

Okay, but losing one's liberty is itself a punishment, at least in many (most) cases.

Punishment is a means of social control that evolved to deter unfairness in social animals of limited intellect; Modern society has outgrown it* - indeed it is arguable that civilisation is the replacement of punishment with justice.

The causes why it evolved aren't the same as the reasons why it's imposed.
But that aside, I don't agree that justice does not involve punishment, in the usual meaning of the words.

By having a neutral party decide the penalties for transgressions, we break the vicious circle of revenge and counter-revenge (feuds, vendettas and the like), at the price of leaving victims always feeling that perpetrators got off lightly. That feeling stems from the evolved desire to harshly punish even slight transgressions, and it is yet another of our natural responses that we need to temper, if we are to remain civilised.

But that doesn't seem to indicate that there is no punishment, but rather, that the punishments are less harsh than in other social environments.

 

[Bronzeage]

It's a common theological error to confuse forgiveness in the afterlife with forgiveness in the living world. God's forgiveness does not exempt a person from the consequences of their earthly actions. Religions which encourage forgiveness do so because a person will better reflect the nature of God.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

If it's sincere then it demonstrates that the person has recognized the error of their ways.

 

[Bomb#20]

Religions are happy to promise to would-be converts that their nice God will be happy to forgive your transgressions - just cry some croc tears of remorse and God will forgive ... It is not God who bore the loss, it is the victim who suffered and is still suffering. Isn't it the first duty, if one is truly remorseful, to make up the loss that the victim has suffered? ... The victim might not be in such a hurry to forgive. The victim will demand compensation & there lies the problem. Pay back the debt or just cry some croc tears of remorse? Which one is faster, easier? Of course the latter & therein lies the attraction. Hinduism teaches the former - it stress Reincarnation - you must come back to pay the debts and that is why it is out of favor
...

Angra: Like sitting in some jail? ... - how does that help anyone? The reason one is forgiven, i assume by the victim, is because one has made up the loss - if i break something valuable, it is my duty to buy a new one - make up the loss ...

... yes you have realized your mistake, but should you not be doing something about it? ... Do you not teach him that he needs to buy his friend a replacement toy, the money coming out of his allowance? That is the right thing to do

So what makes you think Hinduism is the least bit different from Christianity in this respect? How the heck does Reincarnation mean you're paying your debt back to your victim? How does spending your next life as a dog or a blind man or whatever help your victim any more than spending your current life sitting in some jail? Where's the compensation? Where's the replacement toy? If Hinduism teaches that you must come back to pay your debts, that's your debts to Karma it's talking about, not your debts to your victims; and it is not Karma that bore the loss. Debts to Karma, debts to God, what's the difference?

 

[Bomb#20]

A penalty, sure; to deter others, or to discourage (or even render impossible) a repeat of the crime. But 'punishment' to me implies that the suffering of the murderer is somehow beneficial to someone - although it is not at all clear how anyone is benefited by his suffering.

Really? That brings two questions to mind.

(1) So you figure deterrence of others is sufficient grounds to impose a penalty?

(2) So you figure prevention of a repetition of a crime is sufficient grounds to impose a penalty? Why is that? Is it (a) because a second crime does more harm than a first crime, or (b) because preventing a second crime does more good than preventing a first crime even though the two crimes do the same amount of harm, or (c) because preventing a first crime is also sufficient grounds to impose a penalty?

Punishment is a means of social control that evolved to deter unfairness in social animals of limited intellect; Modern society has outgrown it* - indeed it is arguable that civilisation is the replacement of punishment with justice.

As far as I can tell, people who say stuff like that say it for pretty much the same reason so many Christians say atheists can't have morals because without faith in God people have no reason not to go around robbing and raping and killing whenever they feel they'll get away with it. It isn't true; and deep down they don't really believe it. They just believe in an ideology that teaches them that they're supposed to believe it, so they try really hard to believe it, rather like someone trying to believe in God because of Pascal's Wager. When a Christian says he'd swindle widows and orphans out of their life savings if he thought God wasn't watching, I don't believe him, because I don't believe he really is the sociopath he's claiming to be. And when a post-enlightenment Gutmensch says he'd subject people to penalties even though they don't deserve to be punished, I don't believe him, because I don't believe he really is the sociopath he's claiming to be.

 

[bilby]

Really? That brings two questions to mind.

(1) So you figure deterrence of others is sufficient grounds to impose a penalty?

That depends on the harm done by the crime; the harm done by the penalty; and the effectiveness of seeing the penalty applied as a deterrent. So, no, I don't figure any such thing in the general terms you suggest; but it certainly is true that some crimes are deterred to some extent by some punishments.

(2) So you figure prevention of a repetition of a crime is sufficient grounds to impose a penalty?

That, again, depends on the harm done by the crime; the harm done by the penalty; and the effectiveness of seeing the penalty applied as a deterrent. In some cases, yes; in others, no.

Why is that?

It isn't. You are apparently assuming some rather bizarre level of extremism that is in no way actually present in my post.

Is it (a) because a second crime does more harm than a first crime,

How could that possibly be known, for the general case under discussion? A second crime adds to the harm done by a first crime; but that's not really surprising or noteworthy.

or (b) because preventing a second crime does more good than preventing a first crime even though the two crimes do the same amount of harm,

Internally inconsistent question is unanswerable

or (c) because preventing a first crime is also sufficient grounds to impose a penalty?

Also? Also as well as what? You are making no sense at all here.

Punishment is a means of social control that evolved to deter unfairness in social animals of limited intellect; Modern society has outgrown it* - indeed it is arguable that civilisation is the replacement of punishment with justice.

As far as I can tell, people who say stuff like that say it for pretty much the same reason so many Christians say atheists can't have morals because without faith in God people have no reason not to go around robbing and raping and killing whenever they feel they'll get away with it. It isn't true; and deep down they don't really believe it. They just believe in an ideology that teaches them that they're supposed to believe it, so they try really hard to believe it, rather like someone trying to believe in God because of Pascal's Wager. When a Christian says he'd swindle widows and orphans out of their life savings if he thought God wasn't watching, I don't believe him, because I don't believe he really is the sociopath he's claiming to be. And when a post-enlightenment Gutmensch says he'd subject people to penalties even though they don't deserve to be punished, I don't believe him, because I don't believe he really is the sociopath he's claiming to be.

Well, if anyone here says they would subject people to penalties even though they don't deserve to be punished, feel free to tell him that you don't believe him; But as I have said no such thing, I really don't see why you are bringing this up.

Your response appears to be to something completely different to what I actually wrote.

Perhaps you could try reading my post before responding to it; and maybe including all of the text in your quote might help, as you appear to have snipped the bits where I explain what I mean, and then invented a completely different meaning for what I wrote and responded to that.

 

[Bomb#20]

(1) So you figure deterrence of others is sufficient grounds to impose a penalty?

That depends on the harm done by the crime; the harm done by the penalty; and the effectiveness of seeing the penalty applied as a deterrent. So, no, I don't figure any such thing in the general terms you suggest; but it certainly is true that some crimes are deterred to some extent by some punishments.

I didn't mean it in general terms. If that depends on harm, harm and effectiveness, that means that's true in some cases and false in others. For present purposes, that's a "yes" -- you figure there are cases where deterrence of others is sufficient grounds to impose a penalty. If you find those terms still too general, feel free to post an example of a particular case where you think deterrence of others is sufficient grounds to impose a penalty.

(2) So you figure prevention of a repetition of a crime is sufficient grounds to impose a penalty?

That, again, depends on the harm done by the crime; the harm done by the penalty; and the effectiveness of seeing the penalty applied as a deterrent. In some cases, yes; in others, no.

Likewise, that appears to be a "yes"; as before, I didn't mean it in general terms. You say there exists a crime and a penalty such that preventing the crime from being repeated is sufficient grounds to impose the penalty. Again, feel free to post an example.

But when you say "as a deterrent", that makes it sound like an answer to question (1), not (2). I had assumed by "or to discourage (or even render impossible) a repeat of the crime" you meant using jail as a physical obstacle to the perp doing it again, as opposed to making him too scared to do it again. Did you not mean the "or" to indicate that there are two alternative justifications? Is effectiveness as a deterrent always required?

Why is that?

It isn't. You are apparently assuming some rather bizarre level of extremism that is in no way actually present in my post.

Sorry I gave that impression. You say "In some cases, yes". Why is that, in those cases? What I meant to ask was, why is discouraging or rendering impossible the repetition of a crime sufficient grounds to impose a penalty, in those cases where it is?

Is it (a) because a second crime does more harm than a first crime,

How could that possibly be known, for the general case under discussion? A second crime adds to the harm done by a first crime; but that's not really surprising or noteworthy.

or (b) because preventing a second crime does more good than preventing a first crime even though the two crimes do the same amount of harm,

Internally inconsistent question is unanswerable

or (c) because preventing a first crime is also sufficient grounds to impose a penalty?

Also? Also as well as what? You are making no sense at all here.

I was laying out all the plausible answers I could think of to "Why is discouraging or rendering impossible the repetition of a crime sufficient grounds to impose a penalty, in those cases where it is?", in order to turn it into a multiple choice question. If you find my list of options incomprehensible, feel free to ignore the options and just answer in your own words. And again, I'm not trying to focus on the general case; feel free to pick a particular example. All I am trying to draw out of you is an explanation of why you said "repeat". Why, in your analysis of the morality of applying a penalty to discourage or even render impossible an occurrence of a given crime, is it important to you that the same person committed the same crime previously?

(Incidentally, my question wasn't internally inconsistent; my options all make perfect sense; and I'll explain them more thoroughly if you want me to; but I suspect that would just get us bogged down on peripheral matters. Better you just answer directly instead of trying to understand my options well enough to figure out which, if any, matches your thinking.)

Punishment is a means of social control that evolved to deter unfairness in social animals of limited intellect; Modern society has outgrown it* - indeed it is arguable that civilisation is the replacement of punishment with justice.

... when a post-enlightenment Gutmensch says he'd subject people to penalties even though they don't deserve to be punished, I don't believe him, because I don't believe he really is the sociopath he's claiming to be.

Well, if anyone here says they would subject people to penalties even though they don't deserve to be punished, feel free to tell him that you don't believe him; But as I have said no such thing, I really don't see why you are bringing this up.

Your response appears to be to something completely different to what I actually wrote.

Perhaps you could try reading my post before responding to it; and maybe including all of the text in your quote might help, as you appear to have snipped the bits where I explain what I mean, and then invented a completely different meaning for what I wrote and responded to that.

Perhaps there is some subtlety in your position that was lost on me, so I jumped to unwarranted conclusions. My apologies. When you said "A penalty, sure;", I took you to mean that you are willing to subject people to penalties. If I was wrong, and you meant you were okay with somebody else doing it but wouldn't do it yourself, sorry to misunderstand. My bad. Please clarify.

When you said "But 'punishment' to me implies that the suffering of the murderer is somehow beneficial to someone - although it is not at all clear how anyone is benefited by his suffering.", I took you to mean that you did not perceive "He deserves it" as a reason to punish a murderer, and therefore thought there had to be some other reason to punish him if the punishment were to be justified. Was I wrong about that? I then jumped to the conclusion that you thought a murderer did not deserve to be punished, since people who think murderers deserve to be punished normally perceive that to be a reason to punish them. Are you saying you agree that murderers deserve to be punished? Why, then, do you think "punishment" implies that the suffering of the murderer is somehow beneficial to someone? Do you perceive "He deserves it" as a reason to punish someone?

 

[Underseer]

1. It's moral because Christians do it.
2. It's only moral when Christians do it.

You are a bad person if you disagree with either 1 or 2 above, probably because you believe in moral relativism. If you would just accept Jesus into your heart, you would understand that moral relativism is wrong. Once you accept moral absolutism, you will become morally superior, and once moral absolutism makes you morally superior, you will see that both number 1 and 2 above are correct. [/christianstrawman]

 

[braces_for_impact]

This is why morality rooted in the well being of people is superior. We make the rules because it's about us. In thousands of years of human history religions have used their gods as the foundation of their morality. In thousands of years none have been able to be proven right. It all comes down to what each of their gods (or karma) wants, and they will keep arguing until the end of time, and no one will ever gain an advantage except through coercion, conquest or conversion. At least with a human's well being as your yardstick, you can debate and study and measure the question.

 

[Eric H]

Religions which encourage forgiveness do so because a person will better reflect the nature of God.

I remember a conversation with a drunk lady, she said she gets in fights and beats people up, will God forgive her.
I said you should ask another question, next time I am angry, and want to beat someone up, can I search in my heart for a way to forgive them? If you can forgive, you may then come to understand how God can forgive you.

 

[Underseer]

You are a dirty and worthless person, but if you obey me and believe everything I tell you, you will not be dirty and worthless anymore. Also, you will become a more moral person if you obey me and do everything I tell you to do. Also, you will receive a great reward, but not until after you die.

Therefore, asking for forgiveness makes you a more moral person. Obey me.

 

[fromderinside]

Yeah, sure, fine. Gimme a grape.

 

[Bronzeage]

Religions which encourage forgiveness do so because a person will better reflect the nature of God.

I remember a conversation with a drunk lady, she said she gets in fights and beats people up, will God forgive her.
I said you should ask another question, next time I am angry, and want to beat someone up, can I search in my heart for a way to forgive them? If you can forgive, you may then come to understand how God can forgive you.

If we look at the function of forgiveness, without bringing God into it, forgiveness puts an end to fighting. Fighting is a negative force in any social group. It hurts people and destroys stuff. Forgiveness puts an end to that.

Without forgiveness, the only way to resolve a serious conflict is to fight until everyone on one side of the argument is either dead or too weak to respond. Even this solution is temporary, as the weak can sometimes grow strong. If we understand the nature of morals and the purpose of morals, the place of forgiveness is easy to understand.

Forgiveness is the counterpart of selfishness. In this, we answer the question posed in the thread title.

As it was once said, much better,

The quality of mercy is not strained;
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest;
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes:
‘T is mightiest in the mightiest; it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown:
His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings;
But mercy is above this sceptred sway;
It is enthronèd in the hearts of kings,
It is an attribute to God himself;
And earthly power doth then show likest God’s
When mercy seasons justice.