We all use the word forgiveness. Yet, what if I told you that a research study found that a majority of people who were asked what forgiveness is actually misunderstood it?
When Plato began his dialogues based on Socrates’s wisdom, he often started with the question, “What is it?” What does the concept at the heart of this dialogue actually mean?
Aquinas, the medieval philosopher, famously stated that a minor mistake at the start of an inquiry can result in significant errors by the conclusion.
When you face harm or mistreatment, or you’re ever in a situation to consider forgiveness, it’s crucial to understand what it truly involves so you can find the right path forward.
Eight definitions of forgiveness
In a recent paper, my colleagues and I used an Aristotelian template to examine definitions of forgiveness that have appeared in peer-reviewed academic journals from 2013 to 2023. We identified eight different definitions, which we describe below.
1. Forgiveness as either a decision or an emotion. In this view, people who engage in thinking only (“I have made a decision to forgive”) have supposedly completed the forgiveness journey. In contrast, other people who feel forgiving (“I no longer hate the person”) are equally seen as forgiving.
2. Forgiveness as centered only on regulating emotions. In this case, forgiveness is defined by reducing in anger or increasing in compassion toward the one who offended. How we think about or behave toward that person is not part of forgiving.
3. Forgiveness as reducing only in negative reactions (whether that is emotions, thoughts, behaviors, or any combination of these). In other words, positive feelings of empathy, compassion, or concern for the one who offended are not part of what constitutes forgiving.
4. Forgiveness as either a state or a trait. A state of forgiveness means we currently have forgiving feelings, thoughts, and behaviors toward an offending person. On the other hand, having the trait of forgiveness means that, over the long term, we are generally forgiving in our emotions, thinking, and behavior toward people. The current state and the established trait of forgiveness are viewed as distinct, separate from one another.
5. Forgiveness as motivational aspects only. Motivation is the internal desire to achieve a particular goal. This view considers the desire to forgive as actual forgiveness itself.
6. Forgiving situations, such as tornadoes, that are outside of human control.
7. Other related experiences. This, for example, includes giving people the benefit of the doubt or tolerating injustices.
8. Comprehensive forgiveness. Forgiveness here is seen as decreases in negative emotions, thoughts, and behaviors and improvements in positive emotions, thoughts, and behaviors toward those who acted unfairly. This approach considers the interplay among decisions and emotions, as well as actions, toward the offending person. It includes both ceasing negative and cultivating positive feelings, thoughts, and behaviors. At the same time, it doesn’t mean excusing injustices or necessarily reconciling with the offending person.
To me, as an academic who has spent the past 40 years studying and researching forgiveness, this last category comes closest to the true definition of forgiveness. Many of these definitions are too narrow, including only a small part of the full experience of forgiveness, which unfolds in the context of a human relationship and can be cultivated over time through practices that become habits.
Forgiveness as loving the other
If forgiveness involves ceasing hostility and softening the heart toward an offending person, then it possesses the characteristics of a moral virtue. Why? A moral virtue, whether it is justice, patience, kindness, or love, gives goodness of some kind to other people. Even if the forgiver pays no attention to the one who offended, the latter person indeed may benefit: This person no longer is the recipient of possible verbal or behavioral disrespect, or even subtle forms of not acknowledging this person’s inherent worth.
Following the lead of Aristotle—who sought to understand the Essence of a concept, meaning its highest possible level—we can ask: What is the highest form of this goodness given in forgiveness? Is it respect, for example, or is it another moral quality, such as love, higher than respect? In showing respect, a person can do so from a distance, in a restrained way. Love, particularly agape love, or loving others when it is difficult and even painful to do so, is the higher virtue.
So what would forgiveness look like at its highest level, giving love to the offender? The forgiver would enter into the other’s life and give this person aid even when it is challenging. Even if reconciliation is not possible, the forgiver might consider offering a kind word about the person to others, or donating a sum of money to a charity in the other’s name. When we forgive, we willingly decide to offer this love (in our thinking), and we do so from the heart (in terms of our emotion) and in our behavior. Buddhist teacher Jack Kornfield seems to admit this when he refers to forgiving as including “a loving heart.”
Forgiveness, then, is to willingly offer goodness toward those who have been unfair to us by reducing negative thoughts, feelings, and behaviors and then offering positive thoughts, feelings, and behaviors toward them, with the highest form being agape love.
Kornfield is aware of this holistic integration of forgiveness when he says, “It’s work of the emotions. It’s work of the mind. And it’s interpersonal work done through our relationships.”
People who have been deeply wounded by others’ actions do not always reach this level of forgiving, and that can be OK and healthy in particular situations. As an analogy, if a person is beginning a physical fitness program, and the eventual goal is a marathon, starting slowly with lesser exercises is not dishonorable. Just as we can grow in physical fitness, we can grow in moral virtues with persistent practice. And not everyone may ever want or choose to run a marathon.
Criticisms of forgiveness
With this definition in mind, it’s easier to overcome some of the hesitations we ourselves may feel about forgiveness—or objections we might hear from others.
1. Forgiveness is a sign of moral weakness because forgivers do not stand up for their rights.
Response: This criticism falsely assumes that, as you forgive, you do not or cannot practice the moral virtue of justice. As Aristotle reminds us, we do not practice moral virtues in isolation, but in conjunction with other virtues. Thus, as people forgive, they can and should seek fairness from those who have been unjust and might continue to perpetuate the injustice. For example, if your boss keeps demeaning you in office meetings, you might first forgive, to reduce anger, and then politely ask your boss for more civil discourse. This teamwork of justice and forgiveness is a sign of moral strength, not weakness.
2. There is a “dark side” to forgiving because it means letting others dominate us.
Response: This particular criticism implies that the forgiver inadvertently encourages injustice because people who are forgiven see it as permission to continue with the injustice. But, again, forgiveness and justice can go hand in hand. If people continue to treat us badly, it’s not a problem with forgiveness but a problem with seeking and enforcing justice.
3. Forgiving others can lower a person’s self-esteem because the focus is almost entirely on those who have done wrong.
Response: This argument fails to see the paradox of forgiving. As a person reaches out to others in forgiveness, many scientific studies have found, it is the giver who heals. In fact, forgivers actually increase in self-esteem—likely because they courageously stand up to the pain, offer goodness, and recognize that negative feelings, thoughts, and behaviors can be overcome, thereby removing the other person’s power over them.
4. When people forgive, all they are doing is making the other person feel guilty. How loving is that?
Response: When people offer forgiveness, yes, they are asserting that someone else was wrong and, therefore, in need of forgiveness. Yet is this a bad thing, to help others see the error of their actions? Feeling guilty may be a path toward changing unfair behavior and improving a relationship. Being nice and not pointing out someone’s faults is not the same as being truthful, which may help people behave in more civil and respectful ways.
5. Forgiveness can be dangerous because it tends to treat people leniently who perpetrate injustices. If all law enforcement officials embraced forgiveness, every jail cell door would swing wide open.
Response: Forgiveness is not the same as legal pardon. People can forgive those who are dangerous and still insist that those who very seriously break the law and are harmful to others should be in a correctional institution for the good of society.
Personally, I have yet to find a definitive critique of forgiveness that renders it illogical or harmful to oneself or others.
With a philosophically accurate view of forgiveness, you can keep your eye on what forgiveness is and understand where you need to head if, indeed, forgiveness is your goal. This accurate view of forgiving, practiced through your own choice, may enhance your well-being if you have been struggling with deep resentment over others’ unfair treatment of you.
Comments