This is of course the Christian idea, but such a belief is deeply flawed. To forgive others for what they do to you is clearly psychologically useful as the psychological wound will more quickly heal. Nevertheless, in order for the healing to truly take place you need to keep well away from the aggressor to make sure they do no harm to you again., The American notion of closure works equally well, often resulting in some kind of revenge on aggressors (some Americans seem to be like that). Forgiving someone who harmed your child, is yes, not up to you even though by harming your child they have harmed you. Apart from anything else, your role as a protector has been successfully challenged.

Forgiving others in all circumstances is not always the best or right thing to do especially as the aggressor may go on to do it again. Forgiving for your own mental health is fine but forgiving a person who harms your child is undervaluing the need for protection of the child above all other concerns.

This is of course the Christian idea, but such a belief is deeply flawed. To forgive others for what they do to you is clearly psychologically useful as the psychological wound will more quickly heal. Nevertheless, in order for the healing to truly take place you need to keep well away from the aggressor to make sure they do no harm to you again., The American notion of closure works equally well, often resulting in some kind of revenge on aggressors (some Americans seem to be like that). Forgiving someone who harmed your child, is yes, not up to you even though by harming your child they have harmed you. Apart from anything else, your role as a protector has been successfully challenged.

Forgiving others in all circumstances is not always the best or right thing to do especially as the aggressor may go on to do it again. Forgiving for your own mental health is fine but forgiving a person who harms your child is undervaluing the need for protection of the child above all other concerns.

Greetings Karl Pfeifer.

I agree completely with Stanley Wilkin except for the projection that the topic-question is a Christian idea!

What is particularly a Christian idea is the practice of forgiveness to one who has offended one.

And by the way as rightly pointed "indirect forgiveness" may have the potentiality of weakening the need for the security of the victim who has the preeminent right to exercise forgiveness or refuse to exercise the right!

I like to believe that not all wrongs qualify to enjoy forgiveness, in the sense that those perpetrators of unparalleled evil deserve nothing but the unreserved condemnation of society without empathy.

Special cases for example will admit of instances of probably terrorism accomplished against a group of people to the extent that it could be said to be a genocide. You don't forgive those things, You punish them.

If society forgives them, then, it must have some sort of state policy that will follow up to consolidate on that forgiveness in the form of pardon or highly disproportionate sentencing.

The same applies to individual cases!

Forgiving someone has been exalted by psychologists as a means of letting go on the part of the person doing the forgiving. If the person moves on and refocuses all the anger and the injustice caused by the perpetrator to useful pursuits then it would make the life of the victim more livable rather than holding onto negative energies. This does not mean that the actual crime or sin itself is condoned.

If you subscribe to the emotion account of forgiveness (that forgiveness is essentially about how one feels about another) then you would argue that forgiveness can never be vicarious. Stephen Darwall is a prominent exponent of the emotion account, and defines forgiving as "to forbear or withdraw resentment” (2006: 72). His book is great on this very question about forgiving on behalf of someone else.

Darwall, Stephen, 2006, The Second-Person Standpoint: Morality, Respect, and Accountability, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Let me add for consideration the more extreme case of the parent or spouse of a murder victim forgiving the murderer. Although the state may have the right to pardon the perpetrator at some point, that is different from forgiveness, and it seems to me that no one has the right to forgive the perpetrator for the murder itself. To suggest otherwise would be tantamount to regarding the victim as property of which one has been deprived. It would be tantamount to forgiving someone for stealing and totalling your car.

This strange practice of forgiveness has manifested itself in Russia too. In the most severe cases it concerns some types of killings, for example in road accident. Adult children, or wife, etc., having received "compensation" (!!!) from the offender, forgiving him and the case is closed "due to the reconciliation of the parties". This looks especially strange if there was a bad relationship between the murdered person and his formal heirs or complete absence of relations (this happens sometimes). This looks like a crime fee. In my opinion, only the victim may has the right to forgive, but not his relatives. It seems to me that serious crimes are committed not only against specific people, but also against the state, so the state should be a co-plaintiff in such cases (without the right to forgiveness, of course).

Well, this was a timely question. A real life case is now in the news:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/botham-jean-s-brother-told-amber-guyger-i-forgive-you-n1062076

In the case of the example given, the answer is yes, it makes sense. The parents are greatly responsible and strongly connected with the helpless child. if the child had been done wrongly by someone, the first person that will be affected will be the parent other than the child. The question does not discount the fact that it makes sense also that forgiveness is given by the child to someone who did wrong to him or her.

Noel Deseo Santander

There's an oddity in what you suggest. It implies that the parent's position is: "I forgive you for the harm you caused me by harming my child", or in the extreme case, "I forgive you for the harm you caused me by killing my child." It seems to take the focus away from the real victim, the child.

Karl Pfeifer

What I am saying is, the child is the victim and so the child should be the one to give forgiveness. it makes sense also the parents will give forgiveness since they are indirectly affected. In a culture where families are closely knit, the relatives' position is given value.

Does a child fully understand the value and meaning of forgiveness?

Some do and some don't. I'd be interested in cases where the parent forgives, but the child does not forgive (although it understands). It seems in such cases not only has the child been physically harmed by the assailant but also its moral autonomy has not been respected by the parent.

Forgive is the world best sense which is highly dealt within the Holy Bible.

In my opinion, the problem is that traditionally the child is considered as the property of the parents. Modern legislation introduces new rules that expand these rights (forming what is called juvenile justice), but does so inconsistently and often stupidly. Therefore, at the same time, the child can complain about the parents (often in cases that are traditionally regarded as elements of upbringing) and special services take actions (which look inadequate for the majority), on the other hand, do not have the right to many things that look natural, and often in the law child being considered as "creature meaningless." The whole spectrum of these contradictions was shown by the case of the so-called “drunk boy” (April 23, 2017, Moscow region, Russia), which caused a lot of publication (in Russian).

We can forgive a person if he sincerely bargained. However, it is very difficult to understand how sincere repentance is.

There is limit of everything, forgive someone else for his/her offence certainly will depend about their motive and deepness of their offence.

Forgiveness is good thing, however, it depends on the level of crime. If someone is killing others, you can not forgive it.

Forgiving is to set you yourself free, not the offender. There are people who honestly repent serious offences and ask a relative for forgiveness for things they e.g. did one deceased person in the concentration camp. On the judgement day, do you want forgiveness and mercy or do you want justice? If you cannot forgive you are not forgiven that day.

Psychologists generally define forgiveness as a conscious, deliberate decision to release feelings of resentment or vengeance toward a person or group who has harmed you or your beloved ones, regardless of whether they actually deserve your forgiveness. Forgiveness does not mean forgetting, nor does it mean condoning or excusing offenses. Forgiveness is for our own growth and happiness. When we hold on to hurt, pain, resentment, and anger it harms us far more than it harms the offender. Forgiveness frees us to live in the present. Forgiveness allows us to move on without anger or seeking revenge. It is peace of mind and soul.

Would you be emotionally or psychologically hurt if someone killed a relative of yo? I f so forgiveness releases you from carrying a burden which would eventually take over your life, this is portrayed in the Bible as ‘don’t allow a root of bitterness to grow in your life’ . Forgiveness is available to give to all, it is a way of letting go of hurts in your life.

It seems to me necessary first to clarify what is meant by "forgiveness". In my mother tongue (German) we have the opportunity to distinguish between "verzeihen" and "vergeben". The dictionary translates both with "to forgive". Forgiveness in the me aning of "verzeihen" refers to the decision not to think about revenge anymore in order to find one's own inner peace back. This is possible for everybody who has feelings of revenge. Forefiveness in the meaning of "vergeben" refers to a new view of the perpetrator. The default setting toward someone who commited a crime is the identification of the agent (of the crime) with his action (crime). He is considered as a bad person. Not only his deed deserves contempt but the person as such deserves contempt. Forgiveness in the meaning of "vergeben" refers to a new view of this person. He or she is considered diffenently from the deed. The deed remains worth of contempt but the person is considered as someone who is not identical with his/her deed. This seems to me only possible if the perpetrator regrets his/her deed. A perpetrator who regrets his deed desires foregivness by the victim of his deed. But everybody else can change his view on the perpetrator. Crimes and other immoral deeds are not only relevant for the direct victim but also for every member of the moral community. This is why not only the victim but also every member of the moral community can forgive or he/she can continue to despise the perpetrator by identifying him with his deed.

Dear Karl,

YOU have a real loaded question. I never thought about forgiveness in those terms. I think more along Dr Hassan Izzeddin Sarsak 's view of forgiveness. I also agree with Terry Purvis

Maybe that is why I can't, I haven't been able to forgive with an open heart? But how does one do that? I think that anyone who can is amazing. When Pope John Paul II forgave the man who shot him, WOW! I believe that he did. Parents may say that they forgive the perpetrator but I think that they are speaking about their pain regarding their child's injury. Yes, there still are people who regard their children and spouses as possessions--that is wrong and the height of hubris to

"forgive". That being said, forgiveness is not absolution, IT is for the victim to give for his/her recovery. Vengeance does not bring peace or contentment or closure.

Hate is a destructive emotion; an open wound that can only be cauterized by forgiveness for the survivor's sake. So, if you are being destroyed because of the pain, guilt or anger related to some one else's injury, YES, you have to forgive that individual.

brigid

Forgiveness - The greatest part of soul .

Absolutely.

Forgiveness is not a performative speech act like closing a contract. It is rather an inner attitude. Thus, it is not possible to forgive in the name of someone else. Karl's question is thus not meaningful. It is based on a wrong understanding of what is meant by forgiveness. Forgiving someone for what they did to someone else is like drawing a circle with four corners.

It really makes sense to forgive someone for what they did to someone else. For example I can forgive someone who did harm to my father and I did that some years ago. Before arriving at this point I always felt resentful to the individual any moment I meet him. Then one day I took the decision to do away with revengeful thoughts and forgive him of that wrong. This I did and now I'm free.

Dear Paul Tiedemann ,

I totally agree, forgiveness is not a performance speech. But, I think that you and Karl agree because he is saying that the victim is the owner of forgiveness. I think sometimes telling someone that you forgive them has become a little passive aggressive. It is like saying that you are above that person. you hurt my feelings or caused me problems but I am a better person than you and I forgive you

My dad used to say always forgive but never forget- and yet injustice ate into his soul and caused him a great deal of pain

brigid

Well, it sounds nice but the forgiveness that the offender needs is from the victim. The third-party may forgive the offender if the third party is also impacted directly or indirectly by the offense. Otherwise, it is more for the peace of the third party than the victim.

Brendan Shea