>>> 'Something Big' HomeForgotten ForgivenessI'm not a Christian, and I don't believe Jesus was the son of God. However, I do suspect that he was a good, thoughtful, imaginative - and likely stubborn - person. Even two thousand years of institutionally self-interested history can't have got that wrong. Few would dispute that his main contribution to human society was that of 'forgiveness'. 'Forgiveness' is a simple concept, though remarkably elusive of thorough-going human adult application and analysis. It has many surviving forms, from it's most basic and most common form with naughty children - to a much harsher, heavily-codified form in criminal law, after the sentence is served. Forgiveness is much misunderstood. Usefully analyzed, it is a technique for addressing instances of moral breach - and it is but one of several such techniques. Often though it is viewed as an absolution of responsibility on the part of the 'forgivee', a full moral 'washing of the hands'. But forgiveness is only useful as a technique if the forgivee truly attempts to re-embrace the 'social contract' that they have breached, ie. the mutual duty to we owe each other to conduct a moral society. But to have it's benefical 'come to Jesus' effect, more is required. The 'forgivee' must come to understand why their wrong-doing is instrumentally in error, in that it poisons the social contract for us all, including them. It is here that individual exploration of why the 'forgivee' justifies the breach to themselves is useful and revealing. In my experience most (not all, as there are sociopaths) moral breaches [not moral-'breachers' (or sinners), as we are all that to greater or lesser extent: Jesus has that right too!] are accompanied by an associated moral reasoning that it was justified by some past moral and real injury to the forgivee. In other words: they've 'been done wrong too'. It's at this point that the true success - or failure, which is much more common - of forgiveness becomes apparent. It is only when you reach the debate about this 'excusing' prior-breach that you get to the kernel of the issue. This brief analysis shows the depth of analysis and individual relationship sometimes required for forgiveness, as a social technique, to be fruitful. In many cases this translates into an (at least transient) duty on the forgiver to invest time and energy with the forgivee. This is something that is made possible - though not guaranteed - by an individualist moral/political analysis, as collectivist, institutional moral solutions are an obvious failure. Criminal law and sanctions amount to no more than institutional punishment, which the defendent (forgivee) seek simply to avoid on self-interest grounds - not due to any sort of ethical redemption. This is an abandonment - a surrender - of morality, a failure which we cannot tolerate without dire consequence. The point I'm trying to make here is that we must strive for an honest, human 'forgiveness' and the establishment of relationships that support it's ongoing positive effect on an individualist, not an institutional, scale. This is not a blind, foolish endeavour - and when it obviously fails we should give it up - but never should we ultimately surrender the possibility of success, as it is the essence of one of the most powerful non-institutional moral-political tools that we possess. .... But we should only strive and apply 'forgiveness' to individuals. Collectivist entities like corporations, governments and similar are neither human nor moral actors and should be assessed dispassionately for their incidental instrumental benefit, or harm - as the case may be. Indeed, corporations - insofar as they are acknowledged as having the sole 'moral' interest of shareholder profit - may have additional 'structural' moral concerns. Though that's for another day (and another SB essay). |
||
| ||
Last modified: 05-09-24 By: admin | ||
