Forgive or not to forgive?

Forgiveness is in vogue right now. I have listened to conversations and it is fast becoming a “buzz” word in South African Pagan circles. As a matter of fact, a lot of Neo-Pagan groups advocate the philosophy of forgiveness. Some consider it to be one of the five virtues or cornerstones of Neo-Paganism. But, is forgiveness part of Pagan moral philosophy? Did ancient Paganism have a set or uniform ideology regarding forgiveness? Perusing their literature, law court speeches and jurisprudence records (not to mention the writings of historians and philosophers) one would say that it is quite probable, since the vocabulary for the expression of the concept has always been there. Pardon, pity, mercy, compassion, leniency, clemency, etc were all words used then.

Was there a steadfast rule by which forgiving was judged, met out, regulated, and understood in Pagan times? And what do we mean by forgiveness today? Political pardon, personal forgiveness, public apology, civic reconciliation?

And what were the views of men like Seneca, Sophocles, Marcus Aurelius and the Stoics, the Epicureans, Aristotle, Socrates and Plato?

Very important is to realize that Ancient Roman and Greek philosophers did not consider forgiveness to be a true and genuine virtue, but rather the consequence of a virtue, like mercy.

Aristotle’s megalopsuchos [the morally perfect, man of complete virtue] did not need forgiveness by others. They would furthermore not want the forgiveness of the non-virtuous. They would also be unforgiving of others as they would have no wish or interest in being sympathetic to the moral faults of others. They would consider themselves of being immune to moral injury by those not virtuous. They believed in the hierarchy of values and saw the imperfect as not having the same moral standing as the perfected and therefore not possessing the right to make moral claims upon them.

As per Plato, the virtue itself protected the morally virtuous from moral injury by the morally-base and many have since endorsed Socrates’ following thoughts:

“Neither Meletus nor Anytus can harm me in any way; he could not harm me, for I do not think it is permitted that a better man be harmed by a worse” [Apology].

Our modern concept of forgiveness is very Judeo-Christian. Today we are all considered to be morally equal and therefore vulnerable to moral injury from others. When we forgive we are requested to forswear resentment, or at least moderate it. For forgiveness to work, revenge must be completely forsworn. It comes with certain condition and therefore the offender and the forgiver are mutually dependent.

Since human beings live in societies, and since Neo-Pagans understand the interconnectedness of everything and understand that what one does has an effect on the next, in everything we strive for the balance and the well-being of the whole for we realise that we are all interdependent. Do balance and harmony have anything to do with the Zen concept of the middle path? Is this philosophy one of moderation or is it one of discernment?

If a member of the Whole [the all-encompassing organism] is harmed, it interferes with the balance of the very same complex organism. In order to restore balance and harmony, the collective must undergo a process of healing. Only then can forgiveness be considered. Only then will forgiveness be deemed appropriate. The harmful action must cease. The wrongdoer must acknowledge or make the admission that he has wronged the Whole. He has to take responsibility for his harmful action, experience true regret about it and be willing to make the necessary changes which demonstrate his repentance.

In these cases an apology is in order. Starhawk in an article mentioned that this should not be a veiled attack on the harmed person, a justification or a fickle reason/excuse for the harmful or demeaning act. It should be intended to make the injured party feel better. Next the wrongdoer should make the necessary steps to repair the damage and restore what has been appropriated or destroyed. The wrongdoer must once again earn the trust of the wronged person or people. If this is not a possibility, then forgiveness is totally out of the question.
The wronged persons have to overcome resentment in order to forgive and forget. Only in this manner can the Whole move ahead totally liberated from the harm incurred upon it.

Granting a pardon does not necessarily include the setting into motion the internal mechanism of forgiveness. The wronged persons have to overcome resentment in order for forgiveness to be true and effective.

In Aristotle’s’ Nicomachean Ethics we learn that sungnômê means “to sympathize, to forebear” and refers more to an “excuse” or pardon rather than to forgiveness as we understand it today.

Forgiveness is a two way street. Unilateral forgiveness is purposeless. Here the injured party forgives the offender who has not met the conditions through being unrepented.

In the public arena, political forgiveness (apology) is most suitable to matters pertaining to injury, be they physical or moral.

Telling the truth is imperative both in interpersonal forgiveness as well as political apology.

Forgiveness is conditional in a nature. This means that forgiveness comes with conditions attached. Social norms regulate forgiveness so this obviously varies from group to group. The injured party must relinquish or lower his level of resentment, the offender must take the necessary steps which qualify him as worthy for pardon and forgiveness must be possible option. Unilateral forgiveness bears little fruit. A public or political apology requires merely a public admission of wrongdoing and of being the responsible moral agent for the damage caused.

Plato interpreted sungnômê as a form of leniency, rather than forgiveness as we intend it. It is more a form of tolerance than our modern concept of unconditional forgiveness.

The first recorded form of political forgiveness was the amnesty granted by Athens in 403B.C. The Greek word amnestia means forgetfulness. The Romans also had this custom which they named restitution in integrum [complete retribution]. This was done in order to achieve reconciliation after civil war or a period of internal strife.

The gods and forgiveness
Virgil tells us that Juno was ruthless and could not forget her anger and that “the gods of heaven were capable of such rancour”. In Euripides’ Iphigenia in Tauris, Electra prays to Artemis to sympathize with her love for her brother Orestes, reminding Artemis of her love for her own brother Apollo. This was meant to elicit understanding/tolerance for Electra.
Virgil also tells us how Venus prevented her son, Aeneas from killing the beautiful Helen. Aeneas wanted to punish the woman who was responsible for the destruction of Troy, but Venus told him not to blame a human, since Troy had fallen through the inclemency of the Gods.
Aristotle taught that when the offender’s deeds are caused by external force or are undertaken in ignorance of the relevant facts, the person is neither simply culpable nor praiseworthy.
“When the external force is extreme, and people commit one of these “qualified willing” acts and, we proceed from this thought: “there is pardon (sungnômê), whenever someone does a wrong action because of conditions of a sort that overstrain human nature, and that no one would endure”
Socrates in the Apology said, “Some involuntary actions are to be pardoned, and some are not. For when someone’s error is not only committed in ignorance, but also caused by ignorance, it is to be pardoned. But if, though committed in ignorance, it is caused not by ignorance but by some feeling that is neither natural nor human, and not by ignorance, it is not to be pardoned.

Aristotle explained the mean with regards to anger: to be angry “at the right things and toward the right people, and also in the right way, at the right time, and for the right length of time, is praised”

In Gorgias Socrates argues, “Doing what’s unjust is more to be guarded against than suffering it”.

The benefits of forgiveness

Studies show that forgiveness is for the good of the psyche (soul).

Forgiveness empowers one to overcome resentment and anger or the need to punish someone when they have wronged us. It is a release of past injuries and anger, as well as the sensations of humiliation, guilt, loss, guilt and failure that go hand in hand with it. Feelings and judgment towards the offender are therefore shifted. The real shift lies in the seeing the wrongdoing as an offense and not as a personal insult. Our behaviour in relation to the offender will therefore automatically change.

In a family if forgiveness does not take place, defensive barriers are formed and closeness becomes an impossibility. Strange bonds are then formed between the offender and the victim.

The mechanism of forgiveness

When under the strain of anger or when you are resentful, the body produces adrenaline and cortisone, going into the mode of flight or fight. The cumulative effects of this constant psychological state of anxiety will result in headaches, ulcers, irritable bowel syndrome, chronic fatigue syndrome and some experts say even cancer.

Psychologists keep on reminding us the liberating benefits of forgiveness: decreased blood pressure and heart rate, elimination of violent reactions and behaviour, less tension, decreased anger, dissatisfaction with life, anxiety, grief, depression, hostility, the boosting of immune system, more positivity, better sleep, increased awareness, relief from stiffness and chronic pains, peace of mind, improved digestion, decreased stress, accelerated healing, etc. In other words, it appears that forgiveness is the beginning of the process of healing.
Aristotle and the Philosophers
The following phrases were written by the ancient philosophers and prod one to thinking deep about such existential matters.
“I know, however, that there are some who think that mercy upholds the worst class of men, since it is superfluous unless there has been some crime, and since it alone of all the virtues finds no exercise among the guiltless”
“Not only does mercy come to the rescue of innocence, but often of righteousness also”
“There arise certain acts which, while praised, may yet be punished”
Seneca wrote: “Nevertheless, pardoning ought not to be too common; for when the distinction between the bad and the good is removed, the result is confusion and an epidemic of vice. Therefore a wise moderation should be exercised which will be capable of distinguishing between curable and hopeless characters. Neither should we have indiscriminate and general mercy, nor yet preclude it; for it is as much a cruelty to pardon all as to pardon none. We should maintain the mean; but since a perfect balance is difficult, if anything is to disturb the equipoise it should turn the scale towards the kindlier side”.

”A lofty spirit befits a lofty station, and if it does not rise to the level of its station and even stand above it, the other, too, is dragged downward to the ground”.

Most of us have wronged one another in serious and trivial matters. Some of us have done it deliberately and others did it through circumstantial pressures and personal impulse. Some of us have been led astray.

Some of us have not stuck by strong resolutions, and have consequently lost our innocence against our will. Most of us will continue to make such mistakes as well as paying for them.
“The morals of the state, moreover, are better mended by the sparing use of punitive measures; for sin becomes familiar from the multitude of those who sin, and the official stigma is less weighty if its force is weakened by the very number that it condemns, and severity, which provides the best corrective, loses its potency by repeated application”
“Good morals are established in the state and vice is wiped out”
In Nature, tiny snakes pass unnoticed at first and are not hunted. The moment a snake reaches a certain size and the poison in its glands is more intense; it is noticed by everyone and killed.
"Pardon is given to a man who ought to be punished; but a wise man does nothing which he ought not to do”
Is pardon always the right thing to do?
Upon his return from the campaign in Spain, Gaius Julius Caesar pardoned those who had gone to war against him. Amongst these men were Marcus Brutus, Gaius Cassius and Cicero. Caesar rebuilt Corinth, settled 80 000 Romans in Carthage, he increased the Senate to 900 members, libraries were built, moral reforms were instituted, the harbour of Ostia was renovated and improved, physicians and scientists were encourage to go and live in Rome, a road from the Tyrrhenian Sea to the Adriatic coast was built, as well as a temple to Mars and a huge amphitheatre was erected at the base of the Tarpeian Rock. On the morrow of the March Ides, Caesar was brutally murdered as he granted pardons in the Senate. He died of multiple stab wounds dealt by the very men whom he had graced with a pardon. Casca stabbed him in the neck, from behind, Cassius in the face and Brutus in the groin; the rest of the pack followed suit. Caesar wrapped his toga over his head and lower body and died bleeding at the feet of Pompey’s statue.
To forgive or not to forgive, that is the question.
We won’t attempt to influence your opinion regarding this delicate subject. May the Gods grant you discernment to analyze the facts and to reach your own informed conclusion.
“For, though the true profit of virtuous deeds lies in the doing, and there is no fitting reward for the virtues apart from the virtues themselves” Seneca.
Morgause Fonteléve

References:
C:\Documents and Settings\Private\My Documents\Seneca Essays Book 1.htm
http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_pennellhistoryofrome34.htm
Charles L. Griswold, Forgiveness: A Philosophical Exploration, Cambridge University Press, 2007,
Aristotle’s Apology
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/starhawk/2007/11/forgiveness_...
Virgil’s Aenid