Education for forgiveness in the context of developing prudence

2021

RPed

Self Cite

Przebaczenie sobie stanowi jedną z najbardziej kontrowersyjnych decyzji, nie tylko ze względu na fakt samodzielnego uwalniania się od konsekwencji moralnie złych wyborów dokonywanych przez jednostkę, ale także z uwagi na łączenie go z ukrytym, udzielanym sobie, przyzwoleniem na wykonywanie podobnych aktów w przyszłości. Równocześnie w literaturze psychologicznej ukazywane są pozytywne aspekty przebaczenia sobie. Niniejsze analizy poświęcone są moralnej wartości przebaczenia sobie i w konsekwencji prawomocności włączania go jako celu w proces wychowania. W kolejnych punktach najpierw decyzja o przebaczeniu sobie porównywana jest do aktów samouniewinnienia, samousprawiedliwienia i samoułaskawienia, następnie analizowany jest czyn, w odniesieniu do którego jednostka ma prawo podjąć decyzję o przebaczeniu sobie, wreszcie podejmowana jest refleksja nad procesem przebaczenia sobie oraz jego warunkami.

Section: Proces Przebaczenia Sobieunclassified

Przebaczenie sobie jako cel wychowania

2021

RPed

Self Cite

“…Consequently, such a decision may seem irrational and naive. This decision conditioned by the victim's faith is sometimes justified by the hope that the wrongdoer's attitude will change under the influence of the good experience from the victim (Giannini, 2017); yet, this hope can also be irrational (Starnawski, 2009), and the decision to forgive imprudent (Horowski, 2019). If, therefore, the Christian understanding of forgiveness would refer only to the above-mentioned words, then one could conclude that Christianity, by calling for forgiveness, neither supports the individual's development nor contributes to the concern for their health, but it forces them to face the dilemma of rationality and faith, causing unnecessary psychological stress.…”

Section: Christianity and The Dilemma Of Forgivenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Human Health and Christianity in the Context of the Dilemma of Forgiveness

Kowalski

2021

J Relig Health

Self Cite

This article argues that Christianity has the potential to strengthen people’s health when solving the forgiveness dilemma. However—paradoxically—the starting point for the analysis is the presumption that a hasty and imprudent decision to forgive may negatively impact the health of the decision-maker, and that Christianity may contribute to people making unconsidered decisions by prompting them to forgive. In the first part of the analysis, the concept of health and its biblical understanding are discussed. The second part includes both a reflection on forgiveness-related dilemmas and the tension between the decision to forgive and the feeling of regret that may negatively influence health. In the third part, the Christian concept of forgiveness with reference to the aforementioned issues is discussed.

“…For victims to forgive, the wrongdoers must understand the suffering they have caused, they must feel regret for the injuries they caused, they must disavow this kind of wrong again and they must credibly commit to changing their behaviours (Griswold 2014, 51). The decision to forgive people who are not mature enough to change their behaviour is even seen as imprudent (Horowski 2019). The third argument for depriving victims of subjectivity is related to the fact that the above-mentioned conditions of forgiveness -established in culture -influence the behaviour of victims in relationships with the perpetrators.…”

Section: Harm As a Source Of Loss Of Subjectivity By The Victim In The Relationship With The Perpetratormentioning

confidence: 99%

Harm, Forgiveness and the Subjectivity of the Victim

2021

Philosophia

Self Cite

Forgiveness is one of the most valued decisions in contemporary culture, although it has been emphasised that imprudent forgiveness can cause more harm than good in human relationships. In this article, I focus on the rarely discussed aspect of forgiveness, namely the recovery of subjectivity by the victim in their relationship with the perpetrator. I divide my reflection into three parts. In the first, I deal with the issue of the subjectivity of individuals in social relations. In the second part I present the consequences of the victim’s experience of harm, which include, first, the evoking of negative emotions, and subsequently the impact of these emotions on the way the victim functions as a subject in the relationship with the perpetrator. In the third part I show how – thanks to forgiveness – the victim regains subjectivity. Furthermore, I address the moral value of forgiveness. I argue that the regaining of subjectivity by the victim is a premise for recognising forgiveness as a morally good act and illustrate that forgiveness – properly defined – does not pose a threat to the good of people creating a relationship with the perpetrator.