‘Forgiveness’
CAERS Substack Article #88
Sometimes important ideas that seem simple and straightforward can be surprisingly confusing and even paradoxical.
The word ‘forgiveness’, like the word ‘love’ discussed in the last article, likely falls into this category. There is a tendency to think that both of these concepts involve an element of reciprocity, that both parties involved in forgiveness or love must be of like mind. Or a sense that feeling plays a major role in loving or forgiving. However, neither of these is strictly true. In fact, as soon as there is an expectation of mutuality, or need for a specific emotion, then the true meaning of either can been lost.
Like love, forgiveness is a choice we make, even if we are not emotionally predisposed to doing so. Revenge, on the other hand, is mostly driven by emotions like anger and fear. It is one thing to want there to be justice whereby the guilty party is identified with their wrongful actions and is made to atone for them as much as possible. This is at the core of restorative justice. Retributive justice, on the other hand, has more to do with punishment of the perpetrator than with reform and rehabilitation that is perhaps more likely to prevent them from committing further such wrongful acts. It also tends to ignore the victim whose injuries are not fully addressed nor resolved.
Forgiveness and justice would seem to relate to one another in that they both imply that one person has done wrong to another. But how do they relate? Does one lead to the other? Is one required for the other to occur? Do they both address the same issues just in different ways?
If we think about it, we might realize that the focus of justice is often more on the perpetrator whereas the focus of forgiveness, as counterintuitive as it may be, is on the victim. Forgiveness is a conscious effort one makes to rid oneself of the desire for revenge that can be self- destructive. Buddha said that revenge is like drinking a cup of poison and expecting the other person to die. Forgiveness is letting go of that cup. In doing so, it does not deny or forget that harm has been done, nor does it eliminate the moral imperative for the perpetrator to be held accountable and make restorations.
Forgiveness is about the mind of the person harmed. Despite their anger, can they see the person in front of them as a human being who at one time, perhaps only as an infant, was innocent and worthy of respect and hope? Can the victim be sufficiently humble to realize that they, too, have harmed others and would want understanding, forgiveness and a second chance? Can the victim realize that when they did wrong in the past there were extenuating circumstances and context that should be considered, and to some degree the same might hold true now for those who have harmed them?
Perhaps forgiveness and restorative justice are two sides of the same coin. Both believe that the perpetrator may be capable of redemption and that the ultimate goal is to aid in their personal growth so that further acts of harm can be prevented. Such rehabilitation can at times seem nearly impossible. It may require the forced withdrawal from society of the guilty party until there is sufficient evidence that they are safe to be released.
The perpetrator may claim not to care about being forgiven, or even claim that they do not want it. But that is irrelevant because true forgiveness is a choice that the forgiver makes for their own personal growth and is not dependent on its acceptance by the perpetrator. In this way it is similar to love—one wills the good and growth of the other person without expecting anything in return, including its acceptance. The person offering love or forgiveness, of course, would like their offering to make a positive impact on the other person because they feel it would aid in their growth too, but is not a prerequisite of love or forgiveness. In general, it is likely true that the more sincerely we forgive the more likely the perpetrator is to redeem themselves. Although there are by no means any guarantees, the more we express our belief that they are worthy of compassion and understanding and are capable of positive change the more likely they are to mature and grow.
Forgiving can be difficult for many reasons; some wrongs and harms are extremely difficult to forgive no matter who did them. Sometimes we are reluctant because we are afraid that we won’t see results or that some people seem incorrigible. We have to learn to accept the seeming one-sidedness of love and forgiveness when they are not reciprocated or when we don’t see immediate and favourable results. However, no act of love or forgiveness is ever wasted—it never disappears—because it changes you and any change it may make in another can take years or decades to blossom, if it ever does. Most parents and teachers will attest to the patience required to ‘play the long game’. In a similar way, prayer and meditation are about changing us to become better people in the hope that doing so will ultimately help others.
I have become rather disheartened that so much of what I see on many social media platforms is aggressive and angry. The captions on videos state that one person ‘destroys’ or ‘humiliates’ another during a verbal interaction. How do we bridge divides with such attitudes? How do we open up lines of respectful and constructive dialogue after we have done that? Do we really think that that is best for us in the long term?
When we allow our primitive reflex emotions of fight or flight to run the show we risk devolving into a pattern of intolerance and vengeance. If we can control them sufficiently, they can instead power us to search for better ways to improve the world. Understanding the complex nature of love and forgiveness would be a good start.
Are you at all disappointed with some of the behaviours you have witnessed during the pandemic, including your own perhaps? I have been disappointed with some of mine. Being human, it can be very difficult to forgive some behaviours, including our own, or even especially our own. But the harder we try the better we will become at it, even if we have limits. Do you think that working harder to develop genuine forgiveness might help our country heal and unite? Would it be helpful for our children to see that role-modelled by the adults of the world?
J. Barry Engelhardt MD (retired) MHSc (bioethics)
CAERS Health Intake Facilitator
This was a disheartening bit of writing.
Yes, it is true that forgiveness, "in spite of," is essential for personal peace --- at least this is the Christian context. It is damn hard work, I can tell you --- and personal forgiveness is demanded beyond peace, but as a requirement of virtue and one's soul.
But as a matter of public policy -- for example with the ongoing and evermore threatening tyranny that is being built upon the COVID scam -- this article must be judged as childishly naive and even dangerous. This is they [corr: the] type of "personal projected onto the public" disordered thinking that has brought us so many evils such as medical totalitarianism, affirmative action, reparations mania, massively false allegations, and -- literally -- millions of ruined lives and death. It is this misapplication of virtue theory that undermines true protection of the innocent. This is being used to destroy Western and other civilizations: it is genocidal and democidal.
No, indeed, this is a disgrace to heap this on so many who need our protection and who are suffering so badly. Given that many of the monsters are still in power in the public-private Leviathan, we are in an existential crisis. I do not know you, perhaps you were one of the physicians that murdered and maimed with the pseudovaccine and promoted the stupidity of lockdowns, masks and punishing the innocent, insightful and courageous people who cared enough to lose jobs, everything they own and critical friendships because of evil and malignant compliance. Was that you? If so, then we need a bit more contrition and what is appropriately probably a life-long commitment to real, tangible restitution.
In order to thwart future attempts to carry out this level of evil, we DO need trials and severe, deterrent punishments for those who could have done something, but instead permitted the misuse and the abuse of medicine, pharmacology and public health to perpetrate this crime. People need to be denied power and they must be seen to suffer honest and legitimate juridical consequences.
Thanks, Virginia. The first lesson is that we do NOT need the WHO with its inevitably grabbed draconian powers, to "protect us." We can discuss what types of bodies can gather information, filter it through DIVERSE thinkers and specialists. By the way, in a crisis, there ARE NO experts. Remember, they are always telling us about the value of "diversity" of genetics, ethnicity and race (as long as whiteness doesn't count). Well, THE most important diversity is intellectual diversity. THAT kind of diversity is what needs to be fostered and protected at all costs -- really -- at all costs.
I have worked with CDC officials, EPA officials as well as state officials during crises. the big killer as I see it is the tendency of people with certain types of personalities, I want to say very damaged personalities, who seem to know how to do behind the back dealings. You would be amazed at how little it has to do with money among the lower tier folks --- it is about petty obsessions with power.
Second, we have to develop our skills at critical matters. Today, one needs to read, like it appears you are doing, about biology, especially genetics and immunology. Start slow. Use good online sources. As long as you develop a deep suspicion of Wikipedia when it swerves into the political weeds, and can recognize its subtle biasing in even seemingly non-political areas, you can start learning about topics at Wikipedia. But then dig deeper.
Unfortunately, they are destroying our libraries, including the Carnegie library. but then there are old bookstores where old books are both inexpensive and more reliable.