The who, the what, and the how of forgiveness

Abstract

We are often encouraged to forgive those who have wronged us. Before we can decide whether this is what we ought to do, we had better figure out what forgiveness amounts to. This article surveys recent philosophical disagreements over the nature of forgiveness. Is it only victims who can forgive the wrongs that were done to them, or can third parties also forgive? Is it possible to forgive yourself? When you forgive, what is that you are forgiving? Do you forgive morally wrong actions, or do you forgive wrongdoers? Can you forgive things that were not actually morally wrong? How do you forgive? Do you forgive by having a change of heart towards the perpetrator, by losing your anger and resentment? Or do you forgive by changing the way you treat the wrongdoer, by withholding punishment, or by achieving reconciliation? Or do you forgive by declaring “I forgive you” to the wrongdoer?

A Standing Asymmetry between Blame and Forgiveness

“…Luke Russell and Adam Piovarchy suggest that there are different types of standing in cases of blame and forgiveness: the standing to blame (which the hypocrite Zane lacks) is a kind of moral standing, while the standing to forgive (which the bartender lacks) is metaphysical standing. 8 The former is a moral right or entitlement, while the latter is tied to ability. One might think that drawing this distinction takes the allure or mystery out of The Asymmetry: "standing" doesn't refer to just one thing that an agent might have with respect to blame or forgiveness, as there are distinct phenomena at work in each case.…”