Getting Even: Forgiveness and Its Limits

Getting Even: Forgiveness and Its Limits

Jeffrie G. Murphy

Language: English

Pages: 152

ISBN: 0195151496

Format: PDF / Kindle (mobi) / ePub


We have all been victims of wrongdoing. Forgiving that wrongdoing is one of the staples of current pop psychology dogma; it is seen as a universal prescription for moral and mental health in the self-help and recovery section of bookstores. At the same time, personal vindictiveness as a rule is seen as irrational and immoral. In many ways, our thinking on these issues is deeply inconsistent; we value forgiveness yet at the same time now use victim-impact statements to argue for harsher penalties for criminals. Do we have a right to hate others for what they have done to us?

The distinguished philosopher and law professor Jeffrie Murphy is a skeptic when it comes to our views on both emotions. In this short and accessible book, he proposes that vindictive emotions (anger, resentment, and the desire for revenge) actually deserve a more legitimate place in our emotional, social, and legal lives than we currently recognize, while forgiveness deserves to be more selectively granted. Murphy grounds his views on careful analysis of the nature of forgiveness, a subtle understanding of the psychology of anger and resentment, and a fine appreciation of the ethical issues of self-respect and self-defense. He also uses accessible examples from law, literature, and religion to make his points. Providing a nuanced approach to a proper understanding of the place of our strongest emotions in moral, political, and personal life, and using lucid, easily understood prose, this volume is a classic example of philosophical thinking applied to a thorny, everyday problem.

Character as Moral Fiction

Héroes, machos y patriotas: El fútbol entre la violencia y los medios

In the Name of Profit: Profiles in Corporate Irresponsibility

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Others “get theirs.” Neither does it follow that the law ought to be a vehicle for such acting out. Feeling vindictive is one thing, but actually seeking vengeance or getting even—personally or through the law—is quite a different thing, and that will be the subject of the next chapter. Before beginning that chapter, however, let me address a question that may have arisen in the minds of some of my readers. Given that I have had much to say in defense of vindictiveness, and given that I have.

Structure contains at least an element of vengeance? And might not victims or survivors provide relevant—if not decisive—evidence on the degree of harm caused? I leave these questions for the reader to ponder. Where has the discussion reached to this point? I have tried so far to make the best case I can for vindictiveness and revenge-taking. I have been motivated to do this because I fear that the case against vindictiveness has often been driven more by slogans than by persuasive argument. I.

Way for reconciliation. It is less likely to do so, however, in a world where we come to believe that too many claims of repentance are insincere and expedient—talking the talk without (so far as we can tell) walking the walk. I have, with Bishop Butler, tried to stress the virtue of forgiveness while at the same time acknowledging some value in the vindictive passions that forgiveness must often overcome. As long as there is evil in the world—and I would not advise holding one’s breath until.

That, when Hampton and others write uncritically of the redemptive power of receiving forgiveness, they are being a bit like this priest. Let me now bring to a close this discussion of self-forgiveness—a discussion enriched, I think, by the thought of Jean Hampton even at places where I have ultimately disagreed with her. My main concern in this chapter has been to caution against what some have called “cheap grace”—easy self-forgiveness that is unearned and undeserved for the unrepentant.

Democratic government with full black participation, all parties had to agree that there would in most cases be no punishment for evil acts that occurred under the previous government. Politically motivated wrongdoers, by making a full confession and accepting responsibility, would typically be granted amnesty. In this process the wrongdoers would not be required to repent, show remorse, or even apologize. I can clearly see this process as one of reconciliation—a process that will (one hopes).

Download sample

Download