- #1
Loren Booda
- 3,125
- 4
Is there evidence to support the contention that evil can be overcome by grace and amnesty?
Before we can answer this, we need to agree exactly what is meant by the word "evil" in this context... could you elaborate?Loren Booda said:Is there evidence to support the contention that evil can be overcome by grace and amnesty?
Then it depends on the underlying causes or reasons for malevolent behaviour, and the attitude of the malevolent agent towards his/her own behaviour.Loren Booda said:Here by "evil" I mean not in the supernatural sense, but as deeds of malevolence.
Loren Booda said:Is there evidence to support the contention that evil can be overcome by grace and amnesty?
Loren Booda said:Is there evidence to support the contention that evil can be overcome by grace and amnesty?
I'm not convinced that there is a clear case of cause and effect here - are these severe punishments in place because of the barbaric and lawless nature of some elements of society - or are some elements of society barbaric and lawless in nature because of the severe punishments which are in place? It's not that simple...baywax said:Teaching by example of barbaric acts (death sentence, hanging, whipping, be-heading, keel-hauling) leads to more of those kinds of actions in the society that is governed by these viceral decrees.
moving finger said:I'm not convinced that there is a clear case of cause and effect here - are these severe punishments in place because of the barbaric and lawless nature of some elements of society - or are some elements of society barbaric and lawless in nature because of the severe punishments which are in place? It's not that simple...
Take the gun law in the USA for example. Do people in the US feel they need to have the right to own firearms because US society is dangerous - or is US society dangerous because people feel the need to have the right to own firearms? This is undoubtedly a two-way process/relationship, each feeds on the other in a vicious circle. There is no simple one-way cause and effect relationship, but one certainly cannot break this vicious circle by clinging to ideas of punishment, retribution and revenge and denying the efficacy of forgiveness.
Best Regards
Moving Finger
Loren Booda said:Well put, until the misuse of the word "schizophrenic," which actually describes sufferers who even nowadays are shackled, abused, abandoned and humiliated due their no-fault illness. Here in the U.S. they are given the "freedom to be psychotic."
I humbly suggest it's not as clearly "one-way" as you would perhaps like to think. Society is nothing more nor less than a collection of individuals, to suggest that society "causes" individuals to act in a certain way, and at the same time deny that individuals can have any effect on that society, would be erroneous.baywax said:If we look at the physiological and psychological causes of learned traits you'll see that the cause and effect are clearly defined. A society teaches the individual how to behave. In rare instances an individual will have influence on society. In the microcosim, the family authority teaches the subordinates (by example) how to behave, regardless of what the content of idealized written and verbal decrees are, the examples set are the behaviors that are mimiced.
And such a method is efficacious if and only if individuals can affect society, in addition to society affecting individuals - precisely my point. There is no simple "one-way" cause and effect relationship, there are causes and effects both ways.baywax said:It seems clear to me that leading by example is by far the most effective teaching method.
I believe this illustrates the notion that the course of "not forgiving" someone whilst at the same time "not taking any action about it" is a useless and possibly self-harming course. If I am to take the course of "not forgiving" some person for an act in the past, then my course is useful if and only if it leads to some action or behaviour of mine which is in line with such non-forgiveness. Such an action or behaviour could be (for example) acting to punish that person, to incarcerate that person, or to change that person's behaviour.Solidly-here said:And to moving finger: "forgiveness is effective only when there is remorse and a willingness and ability to act correctly in future."
In one sense, maybe.
The way I view forgiveness is: I don't want to keep holding on to a Grudge.
If someone injures me (or my feelings), I will sit with that injury, until I forgive him.
My hating him ONLY affects me. He feels nothing, yet I sit there filled with hatred.
I am losing, and he is STILL winning, and still hurting me.
There's a story I heard: Two men were Prisoners of War. They were tortured often.
They met 20 years later at a reunion. The first guy asked: "Do you STILL hate our captors?"
The other guy growled: "Yes, I will hate them forever."
The first guy said: "Well, then they've still got you imprisoned, don't they?"
I forgive myself for allowing myself to put up with the crap that the other person did to me.
I could have avoided it (or handled it better) . . . but I didn't.
So, being a kind guy, I will forgive myself for being upset by the event.
Loren Booda said:Here by "evil" I mean not in the supernatural sense, but as deeds of malevolence.
This however does not apply in a system where the perpetrators of malevolence are in the minority and most of the victoms of that malevolence are the innocent majority (as is the case in most real societies). In this case, malevolence is not "dependent upon a system of tolerance and forgiveness".baywax said:Deeds of malevolence can only continue with a certain amount of forgiveness occurring amongst those perpetrating the malevolence.
If the perps were to practise malevolence on each other the malevolence would end in a short period of time because the source would be extinquished. So, in this light, the malevolence is dependent upon a system of tolerance and forgiveness.
moving finger said:This however does not apply in a system where the perpetrators of malevolence are in the minority and most of the victoms of that malevolence are the innocent majority (as is the case in most real societies). In this case, malevolence is not "dependent upon a system of tolerance and forgiveness".
It seems there is some confusion in this example about what exactly is being "forgiven". The topic of this thread is whether forgiveness of malevolent behaviour is effectual or not - in the example you give the Nazi party members were not forgiving Hitler for his malevolence, they were (according to you) forgiving him for his ancestry, stature and medical condition - which is not really relevant to the topic.baywax said:The Nazi SS showed forgiveness and tolerance toward their leader's (Hitler's) jewish anscestry, his diminutive stature and his unreasonable and unstrategic commands that were highly influenced by the syphilis he had contracted. Without that sense of forgiving and tolerance within the ranks of this malevolent political party there would probably have been a different outcome and perhaps no Nazi party to speak of.
Agreed the social system itself might break down, but it does not follow from this that any malevolence which is present within such a social system (especially if that malevolence is prevalent amongst a small minority of the members of that system) is in any way directly dependent on such forgiveness or tolerance.baywax said:Forgiveness and tolerance appear to hold an essential role in any social system. Without them the systems breakdown rapidly.
I don't see how your "therefore" follows - you seem to be arguing on the one hand that malevolence feeds off forgiveness and tolerance, and on the other that forgiveness and tolerance quells malevolence?baywax said:Therefore I would recommend that tolerance be used as a component that will not only quell malevolence but serve as a mechanism of behavior modification in the case of reforming the malevolent personality. It acts as a strong role model that is, if not consciously familiar, unconsciously accepted as an essential part of survival.
moving finger said:It seems there is some confusion in this example about what exactly is being "forgiven". The topic of this thread is whether forgiveness of malevolent behaviour is effectual or not - in the example you give the Nazi party members were not forgiving Hitler for his malevolence, they were (according to you) forgiving him for his ancestry, stature and medical condition - which is not really relevant to the topic.Agreed the social system itself might break down, but it does not follow from this that any malevolence which is present within such a social system (especially if that malevolence is prevalent amongst a small minority of the members of that system) is in any way directly dependent on such forgiveness or tolerance. I don't see how your "therefore" follows - you seem to be arguing on the one hand that malevolence feeds off forgiveness and tolerance, and on the other that forgiveness and tolerance quells malevolence?
I'll return to my earlier conclusion that forgiveness in the face of malevolence is effective if and only if there is remorse and/or willingness to alter future behaviour on the part of the perpetrator of that malevolence. Otherwise it's ineffective.
Huckleberry said:I don't see any necessary connection between tolerance and forgiveness. What one permits is not the same as what one pardons, and vice versa.
This may be true - but how is this relevant to the question of whether forgiveness of malevolence in particular is effectual or not? Simply because forgiveness is an inherent part of most stable social structures, it does not follow from this that the forgiveness of each and every act is effectual.baywax said:The main point of what I've written, using the Nazis as example, is that tolerance and forgiving are inherent in every social system. Without them a system breaks down. The same is true in structural engineering, no tolerance - no structure.
I don't believe you have shown this.baywax said:It was with that demonstration that I was able to conclude that when forgiveness and tolerance are applied toward modifying the behavior of a malevolent individual, forgiveness and tolerance has a 100% chance of being effective ("reaching" the individual) because it will be recognized (consciously or unconsciously) as a mechanism that leads toward the survival of that malevolent individual.
If I was married and my wife cheated on me I would not tolerate that, but I could forgive it eventually. The relationship would probably be over, but hopefully I would bear her no ill will.baywax said:Permission and pardon are not necessarily "connected" to forgiveness either. Forgiveness is the result of a tolerant attitude toward a past deed. There can be no forgiveness without a tolerance of the motivations and actions that have taken place.
Huckleberry said:If I was married and my wife cheated on me I would not tolerate that, but I could forgive it eventually. The relationship would probably be over, but hopefully I would bear her no ill will.
If I was being treated unfairly at work but could not find a job elsewhere I could tolerate it, but could not forgive it as long as the behavior continued.
I see forgive and pardon as synonynyms, just as I see tolerate and permit as synonyms. I took them straight out of the thesaurus because I liked the assonance.
The way I see it, forgiveness is not necessary for evildoers to function as a group. They only need to tolerate each other to fulfill a common goal. They can take comfort in a group for support and protection. They also have to be cautious of their group. Without a minimum level of respect and usefulness to the group they will lose the support and protection and possibly become a victim of the group based on the severity of their evildoings. Most people who do wrong scorn forgiveness. It isn't necessary in a society of such people.
moving finger said:This may be true - but how is this relevant to the question of whether forgiveness of malevolence in particular is effectual or not? Simply because forgiveness is an inherent part of most stable social structures, it does not follow from this that the forgiveness of each and every act is effectual.
I don't believe you have shown this.
I gave an example in the previous post.baywax said:Can anyone show me a case of forgiveness that was enacted out of intolerance?
If I was married and my wife cheated on me I would not tolerate that, but I could forgive it eventually. The relationship would probably be over, but hopefully I would bear her no ill will.
Huckleberry said:I gave an example in the previous post.
Huckleberry said:But are you saying that there has never been a marriage where one person has forgiven their spouse for cheating on them?
Being forced into a situation against ones will is not tolerance.
I would not tolerate anyone using a blowtorch on me or cleaning out my bank account. I may forgive them, but I would not permit them to do those things.
You can use those as two more examples of forgiveness without tolerance.
You describe pardons as a legal suspension of preceedings. Can you not see that I intended a different definition in my post, or do you think that by intentionally misinterpreting me that I would be confounded and agree with your theory of tolerance/forgiveness.1. to allow the existence, presence, practice, or act of without prohibition or hindrance; permit.
1. kind indulgence, as in forgiveness of an offense or discourtesy or in tolerance of a distraction or inconvenience
Huckleberry said:If I was married and my wife cheated on me I would not tolerate that, but I could forgive it eventually. The relationship would probably be over, but hopefully I would bear her no ill will.
baywax said:That's not an example of an actual case. You're hypothesising having never been married and never had a wife cheat on you.
Huckleberry said:You are right that it is not a personal experience that I am talking about. But are you saying that there has never been a marriage where one person has forgiven their spouse for cheating on them?
baywax said:I didn't write or say that. Some people beg their spouse to cheat on them.
Huckleberry said:I do not forgive events. I forgive people.
I do not forgive people to improve them in some way. I forgive people to satisfy myself, the only thing I arguably have any control over in this world.
In its Declaration on the Principles of Tolerance, UNESCO offers a definition of tolerance that most closely matches our philosophical use of the word:
"Tolerance is respect, acceptance and appreciation of the rich diversity of our world's cultures, our forms of expression and ways of being human. Tolerance is harmony in difference."
We view tolerance as a way of thinking and feeling — but most importantly, of acting — that gives us peace in our individuality, respect for those unlike us, the wisdom to discern humane values and the courage to act upon them.
Rade said:Christians have been claiming they follow the moral oath ...as we forgive those that trespass against us...for 2000+ years. About 1 of 6 humans on the Earth claim to be Christians, does anyone see any reduction in "wrong doing" vis-a-vis mans inhumanity to man over this time period ? At the very least we should see a statistical trend of decreased wrong doing with increased numbers of Christians in the world over the past 2000 years--where's the beef ?
Forgiveness reduces wrongdoing by breaking the cycle of retaliation and promoting empathy and understanding. When someone forgives another person for their wrongdoing, it allows for reconciliation and the opportunity to move forward without holding onto anger or resentment.
No, forgiveness does not excuse the wrongdoing. It is important to acknowledge and address the wrongdoing, but forgiveness allows for the possibility of growth and change instead of punishment or revenge.
Yes, forgiveness can be beneficial for both parties involved. The forgiver can experience emotional healing and a sense of release from negative emotions, while the wrongdoer can feel remorse and have the opportunity to make amends and improve their behavior.
It depends on the situation and the individuals involved. Forgiveness is a personal choice and may not always be the best or most appropriate option. In some cases, setting boundaries or seeking justice may be necessary instead of forgiveness.
Yes, forgiveness can be a difficult and complex process. It may require time, effort, and a willingness to let go of negative emotions. It is important to seek support and guidance from a trusted individual or therapist if forgiveness feels overwhelming or impossible.