#186
Post
by Hype » Sun Jul 29, 2012 3:13 pm
The problem with the concept of 'forgiveness' is that it's ambiguous.
In one sense,
Forgiveness (1): Person A forgives Person B for some act, Φ, if Person A simply ceases to be in a state of resentment or anger toward B with respect to their having done Φ.
In another,
Forgiveness (2): Person A forgives Person B for some act, Φ, if Person A now recognizes Φ as (no longer or never having been) worthy of condemnation, offense, resentment, anger, or whatever, and as a result, absolves Person B of having done any wrong, or of being responsible for it, anyway.
They're easy to mix up. The difference is clear though: in the first case, the change in Person A is with respect to Person B, not necessarily the act, and it doesn't necessarily imply any change in the moral value of the act. In the second case, the change in Person A is with respect to the act, Φ, and only to Person B derivatively, because the moral value of Φ has changed.
But in ordinary use, it's often not clear how it's being used.
So say someone murders your family member, and years later, they come up for parole, and at the hearing you say "I have forgiven him." It seems most likely that you mean Forgiveness (1), since it would be much harder to believe that you had ceased to see murder as worthy of condemnation.
But Forgiveness (2) is really the sort of thing that changing one's attitude with respect to free will might have, if you see it the way Mockbee seems to. The idea being: well, they couldn't have not done it, and so we should always forgive it. But of course this would only change the moral value of the act if a person's being free mattered for moral value. I don't think it does.