RoR: Forum

Forgiveness Frees the Forgiver, not the Forgiven.

I was able to forgive the murder of my boyfriend when I found that the killer's mother herself had turned him in. I have not pursued any knowledge about the killer's fate, I am happy for the ability his mother has given me to let the matter go. I can not speak on anyone else's behalf. I myself could not mourn for one I do not value, but I do not condemn the Amish for their ability. The killer must live with his own soul. And I shall live without a tumorous grudge on mine.

Ted Keer, 8 October, 2006, NYC

Post 1

Monday, October 9, 2006 - 8:19am

"The injunction 'don't judge' is the ultimate climax of the altruist morality, which, today, can be seen in it's naked essence. When men plead for forgiveness, fr the nameless, cosmic forgiveness of unconfessed evil, when they react with instantaneous compassion to any guilt, to the perpetrators of any atrocity, while turning away indifferently from the bleeding bodies of hte victims and the innocent--one may see the actual purpose, motive and psychological appeal of the altruist code. When these same compassionate men turn with snarling hatred upon anyone who pronounces moral judgment, when they scream that the only evil is the determination to fight against evil--one may see the kind of moral blank check that tgat altruist morality hands out."

-Ayn Rand "For the New Intellectual"

Post 2

Monday, October 9, 2006 - 9:13am

Forgiveness is not a Suspension of Judgement

Jack,

I do not know if your quote was intended for me, and am not attacking you here. But simply quoting Rand is of little value unless you intend to expand on her point. I (38 y/o, found her at 16 y/o) have read everything she has written that is open to the general public. In order to forgive someone, or something, one must first have judged them guilty of an infraction needing forgiveness or punishment. If my boyfriend's murderer were to be put to death (which will not happen here in NY, as you must know) I would have no qualms and not seek his parole or bemoan his fate. And had I caught him myself, I would have strangled him to death with my own bare hands.

The suspension of judgement - moral relativism - is indeed evil, and leads only to evil. But forgiveness is not the same as failure to prosecute and punish. I think that my love's killer should suffer whatever penalty the law prescribes. My forgiveness is a personal attitude of freeing myself from a pernicious hatred of a man who should not have such a control over my soul.

For the Amish, the killer is dead, and I assume that they view him as a damaged human whose life could have been something better. They can mourn that potential without approving of his evil attacks.

Neither I nor the Amish are "snarling with hatred upon anyone who pronounces moral judgment, or screaming that the only evil is the determination to fight against evil." But there are indeed many in this world who do just that. It is usually the guilty or the secretly guilty and the morally corrupt who do such things.

A few propositions: To punish a miscreant, showing him justice, is helping him, not hurting him. If one fails to punish a child, one spoils the child. If on fails to punish a criminal, one invites him to continue a life of crime. Being a spoiled child or a criminal benefits neither the criminal himself nor society at large. To forgive someone means to release oneself from hating him, not to advocate not punishing him. The Amish are presumably pacifists. This would be a grave mistake on their part, and is only be possible in a society like ours which makes the world (relatively) safe for them. The proper attitude towards one's persecutors is that of Galt towards his torturers, a face with neither pain or fear or guilt - or hate.

Ted Keer, 09 October, 2006, NYC

(Edited by Ted Keer
on 10/09, 8:56pm)

Post 3

Monday, October 9, 2006 - 10:02am

Forgiveness is not something you do for someone else. It's something that you do for yourself.

Post 4

Monday, October 9, 2006 - 10:07am

The suspension of judgement - moral relativism - is indeed evil, and leads only to evil. But forgiveness is not the same as failure to prosecute and punish. I think that my love's killer should suffer whatever penalty the law proscribes.
You mean "prescribes," right? "Proscribes" means to prohibit. The law proscribes the crime, but prescribes the penalty.
My forgiveness is a personal attitude of freeing myself from a pernicious hatred of a man who should not have such a control over my soul.

I don't agree with this view of forgiveness. To "forgive" someone is to say that you no longer blame him for the act, because he has somehow redeemed himself in your eyes. But that wouldn't apply to your love's killer. I think what you want to say is that you are not going to dwell on this heinous act -- are not going to give it any more of your time or attention -- much like Howard Roark who, when asked what he thought of Elsworth Toohey, replied, "But I don't think of him." However, that's not the same as forgiving the murderer, who does not merit forgiveness, because there is nothing he can do to redeem himself. Some acts cannot be rectified or compensated for, and murder is one of them. To forgive a murderer would imply that you would accord him the same recognition and respect that you would any other decent person, which of course you would not.

- Bill

Post 5

Monday, October 9, 2006 - 11:40am

Loving One's Enemy means Killing with Kindness

Bill,

Yes, I meant "prescribes," I hesitated when writing it, but did not maintain the focus to double check it afterwards. As for forgiveness, I mean by the term what I said, and what I further clarified in my last post. I do not accept the conventional definition of many terms. If you feel that another term would better cover the concept I have put forth, let me know. Loving one's enemy does not proscribe killing him with kindness. I apparently agree with Chris in post #3.

Ted
(Edited by Ted Keer
on 10/09, 11:42am)

Post 6

Monday, October 9, 2006 - 11:54am

Forgiveness is for those who are willing to see the error of their ways. My mother cannot forgive my father for his sexual affair because my father has not admitted he has/is err'd.

The same I would say for those who have wronged me as a child, my peers who physically abused me. I cannot forgive them, because they never admitted their abuse was a mistake.

But on the flip side, I think the man in question couldn't accept he was not to blame for whatever abuse that occurred to him twenty years ago [it was stated that his note said something about sexual/physical abuse in his past]. So, in a way, he followed fundamentally flawed logic to its end, with the death of ten innocent people and his own. And that's the twisted part of this situation, how one can some how assume as a victim of a crime some invisible guilt for being a victim. I guess that's why I haven't done the same thing as him, insomuch I've been abused by my peers in the past and not lashed out toward others for it.

So, I think this person who did these horrible acts should never be forgiven, especially for the mistake he made before the crime in question; the belief that he was responsible for whatever happened to him so long ago as he spoke of in his suicide note.

-- Bridget

Post 7

Monday, October 9, 2006 - 1:05pm

Let us assume that the survivors of that abomination in the Pennsylvania Dutch country do not "forgive" the killer in whatever sense. Should they then harbour a little burnt mark on their souls for him? Fantasize about how they would torture him if he were alive? Respond with rage upon the mention of his name? Desecrate his grave?

To forgive is neither to forget nor to pardon nor to show leniency, as far as I use the term. It means no longer harbouring a grudge. Grudges, hatreds, pet peeves, dislikes, anxieties, anger, bitterness, resentment, regrets, etc., are all just weights on one's soul.

When a father spanks his son, he says that it hurts him more than it does his son. This is true. And the father does it nonetheless. But then the matter is over. I was tormented by my pears in many different ways as a child, but have gotten over it and have forgiven these people in my mind. If I met them, I assume the forgiveness would hold, unless they still exhibited some hostility toward me. I recently heard that a friend (at first) who made my life hell from 7th to 9th grade was jailed and will likely never work in his profession again. I found no satisfaction in this, only sorrow for him. But neither do I think, assuming he is guilty, that he should not serve his time. Another friend of mine who felt he had betrayed me when I came out to him in the tenth grade called me ten years later to apologize to me. He had lived with guilt for all that time, yet I had not held anything against him and said that so far as I was concerned, the matter was and already had been closed. Yet my mother is still consumed with hatred toward these individuals.

Other than terrorists and certain politicians I cannot think of anyone I have not forgiven for their actions toward me. If I do, I will post them. But is not being able to forgive really a virtue?

Ted

Post 8

Monday, October 9, 2006 - 3:27pm

Bridget,

He wasn�t abused but he abused, twenty years ago. He sexually molested young family members when he was twelve.

Post 9

Monday, October 9, 2006 - 3:37pm

No one that young sexually abuses unless they themselves have been abused.

Post 10

Monday, October 9, 2006 - 3:57pm

This last looks like a testable psychological claim. Do we actually have good evidence for it?

Peter

(Edited by Peter Reidy on 10/09, 3:57pm)

Post 11

Monday, October 9, 2006 - 4:31pm

Jon, thanks for the FYI, I really don't read the news papers much anymore.

Ted Keer, as for a 'burnt mark on their souls', I don't see it that as possible. I have a couple things that I won't forgive my father for, but that does mean I hold some hatred for him? No, I just know that he has done something to which he has never even acknowledged the wrongness of it and he has never attempted to rectify it. I simply acknowledge that fact and wait for moral restitution. This is not imply hatred, it implies that you won't tolerate evil done to you. And why should you? If you want the best in life you cannot tolerate evil done to you or to those who you value.

For me, I generally value people over all and what that man did to those ten girls was unacceptable and unforgivable. He simply did the most evil thing possible because he couldn't live with guilt, and according to Jon, a guilt well earned. Sometimes, there are things you cannot take back, there are things that are never to happen, but they do. These things are the unspoken sins of the human species, to be well remembered, never forgiven, and always fought against.

-- Bridget

Post 12

Monday, October 9, 2006 - 5:29pm

Bridget,

I haven't even read the article, I find the matter so disgusting. It is not for me to speak on behalf of the survivors. But I don't think that those who are forgiving him (if their words are not hypocrisy - possible when standing out can get you shunned) are going to retain any hatred for him internally.

To put it in more personal terms, if you have not forgiven a family member, do you avoid him, feel uncomfortable around him, change your actions or find memories painful because of him? In the case where the person who wronged you knows what he has done, knows that it is wrong, knows that he should still try to make amends, etc., then I would not pardon or tolerate him. But what does one do when the party is dead? What if the person, like my boyfriends murderer, does not know you, and you do not know him? If I could bring back my boyfriend by killing his murderer, I would do it. But I harbor no animus toward him otherwise.

The central question is, if someone does something for which we can not forgive him, how are we supposed to feel and behave toward that person?

Ted

Post 13

Monday, October 9, 2006 - 6:06pm

"The central question is, if someone does something for which we can not forgive him, how are we supposed to feel and behave toward that person?"

You don't invite him/her over for tea. If you understand the point of that statement.

As for my dad, I don't avoid him, he oddly avoids me. That's his issue, not mine. As for how I feel around him, I don't know what I feel because I have yet to make up my mind about him. I don't even really love him or care about him. Then again, I've never had a strong relationship anyone except my mother. Everyone else tends to be a ghost to me unless otherwise proven. So, for me, his transgression is forgivable, but only if he acknowledges the it and corrects his behavior. Especially since he's not willing to accept me as his daughter [since I'm a male-to-female transsexual], and I won't change my identity to fit his.

-- Bridget

Post 14

Monday, October 9, 2006 - 8:05pm

Thanks for your frankness, Bridget.

Ted

Post 15

Monday, October 9, 2006 - 9:23pm

I wrote an article about forgiveness way, way back.

http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Rowlands/Forgiveness.shtml

Post 16

Monday, October 9, 2006 - 9:56pm