Forgiveness for the non-religious…
Posted: 01 November 2006 04:10 PM   [ Ignore ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  402
Joined  2003-09-24

[b:f6d768154b]Naturalism and Forgiveness
                        by Tom Clark[/b:f6d768154b]

ItĖs always interesting to see those on opposite ends of the political spectrum agree with one another.  In this case, Boston Globe columnists Jeff Jacoby (conservative) and James Carroll (liberal) agree that the Amish were out of line Ō weird, misguided, perhaps morally defective Ō to forgive the killer that so cruelly took the lives of five girls, along with his own.

That Jacoby in Undeserved Forgiveness takes this position is what weĖd expect; after all, conservatives, as a matter of temperament and ideology, tend on balance to be less forgiving than liberals when it comes to crime and punishment.

But to be fair, Jacoby raises an important question about forgiveness that IĖll return to at the end of these remarks: is it appropriate to automatically absolve an offender, absent a clear indication of remorse? In this case, the killerĖs suicide prevented such considerations from arising, and Jacoby assumes that the Amish would have forgiven him whether or not he showed contrition. But of course we canĖt be sure about that.

Carroll (Monsters in Our Schools) notes that this killer, as well as others involved in school massacres, Ïescaped retributionÓ by suicide, and asks Ïhow are we to think of them?Ó Carroll (much like David Brooks here) strongly suggests the killers are, in some sense, self made:

"One hears it said that every monster is someone to whom, at some point in the past, something monstrous was done.  Because it affirms a principle of order, however perverse, the idea has appeal, and may be discernibly true in some instances.  The Colorado shooter, Duane Morrison, left behind a letter making an explicit connection to his sufferings as a child.  But it is wrong to draw a causal link between a person’s former experience of victimhood and his subsequent role as a victimizer. This is most obviously so because the majority of victims, across a range of horrors, do not go on to inflict like suffering on others.  Those who have encountered life’s vicissitudes, even when inflicted out of cruelty or malice, are at least as likely to be marked by special magnanimity as by callous self-centeredness."

Carroll casts doubt on the sufficiency of a killerĖs past, including abuse inflicted on him, to account for his becoming a killer.  After all, he says, others have suffered as much, and not become killers.  So, one wonders, what does account for the fact that some become callous and self-centered, and others magnanimous?  If, as Carroll claims, we canĖt draw a causal link from past life experience to oneĖs character, the clear implication is that character is ultimately self-originated.  In which case, of course, the killer has willfully made himself a monster, deserving of retribution, not forgiveness, at least by us. Thus:

"[S]ometimes forgiveness can seem properly left to the Almighty, while we humans yield to a visceral burst, an imagined clenching of the fist in the faces of our newest enemies: You don’t storm a school, fellows!  You don’t line up children for grievous exploitation! You don’t execute them!  Thinking of those children, how is it possible not to hate their executioners?"

ItĖs true of course that our initial response to such atrocities is likely to be visceral hatred, which all too often results in retributive excesses.  But should we give in to our punitive instincts?  To his credit, Carroll says we shouldnĖt, that ÏDefense of the moral order from the deeds of monsters requires a refusal to become monsters in return.Ó Nevertheless, he ends up refusing the possibility of forgiveness:

"[B]efore empathy [for the killer], there must be truth.  The slaying of innocent girls in the sacred precinct of a school is a self-excluding act.  However the crime is adjudicated, the man who commits it has banished himself from the human family."

Banishment Ō being beyond forgiveness Ō is, according to CarrollĖs truth, a self-excluding act.  As Carroll implied earlier, the killer banished himself by choices that were not a function of his past, but of his own free will.  But on a naturalistic understanding of ourselves, this canĖt be the case, since there is no ultimately self-constructing freedom that operates independently of the various factors - genetic, familial, and social - that shaped the killer.

CarrollĖs case against forgiveness, his common cause with Jacoby, thus depends on an implicit notion of a contra-causal and therefore supernatural free will.  Withholding forgiveness leads him, finally, to accept the killerĖs suicide as an appropriate response to his self-inflicted banishment. 

Now, as both Jacoby and Carroll rightly point out, forgiveness shouldnĖt be automatic, and nothing in a naturalistic, deterministic understanding of human behavior requires that we instantly forgive those who trespass against us, even if thatĖs what the Amish did.  As Jacoby says ÏI cannot see how the world is made a better place by assuring someone who would do terrible things to others that he will be readily forgiven afterward, even if he shows no remorse.Ó

Indeed, authentic forgiveness must be contingent on authentic remorse: the acknowledgement that what one did was terribly wrong, accompanied by deep regret, contrition, and a determination never to repeat the offense.

Many, of course, will be unable to forgive even if such remorse is tendered.  It will be beyond their psychological capacities, especially if they believe people just choose to become evil-doers.  But if they do forgive, this isnĖt a mark of weakness, or an inability to appreciate the gravity of the offense, or a refusal to make moral judgments.  Nor is forgiveness, as Minette Marrin recently argued, an inhuman quality.  From a naturalistic perspective, itĖs the profound, and for the victim, liberating acknowledgement that even the very worst among us, those badly used by the vagaries of their genetic endowment and their life experience, are still part of the human family, and there but for circumstances go you or I.

With forgiveness, the victim might let go of her hatred; the offender might, possibly, be reclaimed in some meaningful sense, even if he never walks free.  If we count forgiveness, properly bestowed, as a virtue, then naturalism can help us be more virtuous.

 Signature 

Barry F. Seidman
Exec. Producer of Equal Time for Freethought

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 May 2007 11:02 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  226
Joined  2006-04-07

Barry,that is my understanding. I hope to see more on that line of thought about naturalism.I find that the terms naturalism vs. anaturalism puts theists in the negative position and puts them with the paranormalists as Paul Kurtz does in “The Transcendent Temptation.”

 Signature 

Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism.He might be wrong!His cognitive defects might impact his posting. Logic is the bane of theists.‘Religion is mythinformation.“Reason saves, not that fanatic Galilean!
  ’ Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate purpose.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 May 2007 03:07 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  964
Joined  2005-01-14

Re: Forgiveness for the non-religious…

[quote author=“Barry”]With forgiveness, the victim might let go of her hatred; the offender might, possibly, be reclaimed in some meaningful sense, even if he never walks free.  If we count forgiveness, properly bestowed, as a virtue, then naturalism can help us be more virtuous.

Forgiveness is more about our attitude towards the person who has wronged us.  Forgiving short-circuits the natural human impulse towards “getting even”, and ultimately makes us better people.  That doesn’t mean that a criminal won’t be given the appropriate punishment for his crime, but just that the victim can then “let go” of his anger.  I think it’s a very Humanistic sentiment, since most religions are built upon the idea of divine retribution.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 May 2007 06:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7571
Joined  2007-03-02

OK forgive me if I sound a bit…  what’s the word?  Anyway, what is the big deal about forgiveness?  You either forgive or you don’t, but whatever the case, it should be from the heart, not lipservice, for there to really be any true forgiveness.

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 May 2007 06:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  226
Joined  2006-04-07

Forgiveness is better than living with resentment.However, I did hate and forgave Saddam. :idea:

 Signature 

Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism.He might be wrong!His cognitive defects might impact his posting. Logic is the bane of theists.‘Religion is mythinformation.“Reason saves, not that fanatic Galilean!
  ’ Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate purpose.”

Profile