ETHICS AND MORALITY. WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO FORGIVE? PT 3.

Unfortunately, it seems that the Definition of FORGIVENESS IGNORES TOO MANY IMPORTANT FACTORS. We are expected to apply it to ALL SITUATIONS IN WHICH HARM HAS BEEN INFLICTED UPON US, EITHER DIRECTLY, OR THROUGH THE HURT AND PAIN CAUSED TO OTHERS WHOSE PERSONAL WELFARE AFFECTS US EMOTIONALLY AND/OR INTELLECTUALLY.

Yet not every Situation is the Same, and Certain Important Details are often Ignored.  As I Mentioned Earlier, This Includes the Future Actions of Those Who have Caused Harm, and whether or not there is any Adjustment in the Type of Personal Behavior that led to the Negative Consequences that were Inflicted on Those Innocent of any Immoral or Illegal Behavior.

However, that is the Final Evaluation;

-  After the Act has been Committed.

-  When the Affects of such Behavior have become known,

at least the Physical, on the Victim(s). ( Mentally, the Victim 

may Suffer Ill- Effects for Years, which may not always be Readily Apparent.)

-  Once Punishment, (Through the Legal System) , has been Exacted.

-  WHEN RESTITUTION , if it is Possible, is made to make THE VICTIM WHOLE, or as Close To as is Possible.

However, that is all Done AFTER THE FACT.  It is at This Point that the Expectation of FORGIVENESS is Usually Confronted, whether or not it 

should be Offered, and if not, WHY?

THIS TYPE OF REASONING EXCLUDES THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT

OF ALL, WHEN WE JUDGE THE ACTIONS OF ANOTHER:  

WHAT LED TO BEHAVIOR THAT CAUSED INJURY OR SUFFERING, AND HOW DOES THIS MITIGATE OR ALTER THE DEGREE TO WHICH WE HOLD THE INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES RESULTING FROM THEIR ACTIONS.

IT IS THE IDEA OF JUDGING THE INTENT VS JUDGING THE OUTCOME.

END OF PT 3.

ETHICS AND MORALITY. WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO FORGIVE? PT 2.

I Ended Part 1 with an example, and a "WHAT WOULD YOU DO?" Question.  However, You may have noticed that Answering such a Challenge isn't easy.  Nor should it be.  "FORGIVENESS" is not the Simplistic Concept Many would have you believe, for it contains Different Elements and Levels that are Unique to each Situation.

Those who believe that Short and Quick Resolutions are the Answer to Resolving Conflicts, sometime begin Their Advice with words like the following;

-  "He's really sorry for what he did, you should forgive him."

-  "She's not like that usually, it won't happen again, don't worry about it."

-  "You pushed the Wrong Buttons, you know how they are.  Watch it 

next time."

THIRD PARTY INDIVIDUALS are usually the ones to offer such "ADVICE."  Either by Design, Ignorance or Fear, They seek to place the BURDEN OF RESOLVING THE SITUATION ON THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN HARMED, OFTEN WITHOUT ANY SANCTIONS AGAINST THOSE WHO HAVE CAUSED THE SUFFERING. 

It is just another CASE OF BLAMING THE VICTIM.

So where do We Start?  How and When should "FORGIVENESS" BE OFFERED, AND UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES?

How about Defining "FORGIVE."

THIS IS THE DEFINITION TAKEN FROM THE MERRIAM- WEBSTER DICTIONARY.

: to stop feeling anger toward (someone who has done something wrong) : to stop blaming (someone)

: to stop feeling anger about (something) : to forgive someone for (something wrong)

THIS IS TAKEN FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA- BERKELEY "GREATER GOOD."  THE SCIENCE OF A MEANINGFUL LIFE, WEBSITE.

What Is Forgiveness?

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, regardless of whether they actually deserve your forgiveness.

These Definitions are fairly close to others I came across, and all have Basically the same things in common.

HOWEVER, THERE ARE TWO IMPORTANT THINGS THAT SHOULD BE NOTICED:

-  BOTH DEFINITIONS REQUIRE NOTHING FROM THE INDIVIDUAL(S) WHO HAVE CAUSED THE PHYSICAL OR MENTAL TRAUMA.

-  BOTH USE THE TERM "FEELINGS,"  AS A NEGATIVE DESCRIPTION REGARDING HOW THE VICTIM CONTINUES TO PERCEIVE THE PERSON AND ACTIONS THAT HAVE HURT THEM.

THIS LEADS US TO THE FOLLOWING:

IS "FORGIVENESS" JUST ANOTHER FORM OF "ACCEPTANCE," SINCE NOTHING HAS CHANGED IN THE DYNAMIC BETWEEN THE "VICTIM" AND THE "PERPETRATOR?"

WHY IS CONTINUING TO JUDGE THOSE WHO HAVE HARMED YOU SOMETHING THAT MUST BE OVERCOME, IF THE INDIVIDUAL(S) INVOLVED HAVE NOT ALTERED THEIR PERSONAL BEHAVIOR, WHICH MAY CONTINUE TO CAUSE PAIN AND SUFFERING TO YOU AND OTHERS? 

END OF PT 2.

FEATURE ARTICLES. RAISING THE MINIMUM WAGE; HERE WE GO AGAIN. PT 2.

What is most troubling about this issue, is the simplistic way it is presented to the General Public. Many Americans are forming opinions based on rudimentary, and misleading data. Here are two statements that seem to be perfectly reasonable, yet represent polar opposite positions when discussing raising the MINIMUM WAGE.

1) "Raising it will cost jobs, especially among low skill workers.  

 Businesses who have such a work force will have to lay off

 workers to remain profitable."

2) "Raising the minimum wage will create a need to expand the 

work force.  Families that are now just making it, will have a      

sudden increase in discretionary spending.  Necessities are

more easily met, and luxuries are now within reach."

What do they both have in common?  They are both offering a solution to a problem that cannot be solved so easily.  Further, neither addresses Moral or Ethical implications in either course of action.

In part 1, I cited the most frequent argument, (Repeated above), against raising the minimum wage.  I then offered arguments against such reasoning at the end of pt 1 and above in pt 2.  However, to find a solution that will be satisfactory to both ends of the political spectrum, certain guidelines must be met. This means that all sides must make clear the bottom line: 

- What is the goal of Government Intervention in regulating wages, and whether it should be done at all?

- Should it be applied to both the Public and Private sector?

- Does the Private Sector have any Moral Obligation to its' employees,

apart from the profit margin affecting Stockholders and Investors?

Finally, and an area I consider most important, is the idea that anytime Private Business asks for Tax Breaks or Subsidies to rescue Poor Management, Faulty Judgment or Declining Profits, it be tied in with employee paychecks.  If you want Public Money to save your Private Stock Portfolio, the Public should expect something in return.  This should be a guarantee, not a desire to see them do "The Right Thing."

Look for PT 3.

BLAST FROM THE PAST: A LOOK AT PRESIDENT OBAMAS SPEECH ABOUT THE EXECUTIVE ACTIONS HE IS TAKING TO REDUCE GUN VIOLENCE. PART 1.

(Some of the following I have covered in other posts. However, I  believe they

are worth repeating, for the Benefit of those who are new readers.)

Let us TRY TO IGNORE THE RHETORIC, SOUND BITES, AND 

OTHER MEANINGLESS CLAPTRAP BEING SPREAD ACROSS

THE AIRWAVES AND THE INTERNET, AND APPROACH THIS WITH 

MATURITY AND RATIONAL THOUGHT, WITH THE IDEA TO DO WHAT 

IS RIGHT AND GOOD FOR THE U.S., THE WORLD, AND FUTURE GENERATIONS.

Question #1-  Do we Agree that there are certain Individuals and/or Groups

that SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED ACCESS TO FIREARMS. If so, who and why?

Question #2-  Previous Judicial Decisions, and Legislative Actions have set

Limits, as to what ACTIONS ARE PERMISSABLE and COVERED BY THE

BILL OF RIGHTS SET FORTH IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

For Example:

FREEDOM OF SPEECH-  DOES NOT ALLOW US TO SAY ANYTHING 

WE WANT, ANYWHERE WE WANT, AT ANY TIME, AND USE "FREEDOM

OF SPEECH" AS A UNIVERSAL DEFENSE TO AVOID SANCTIONS OR 

PUNISHMENTS.

FREEDOM OF RELIGION-  DOES NOT ALLOW POLYGAMY, PHYSICAL

ABUSE, CONSUMPTION OF CERTAIN DRUGS, DISCRIMINATION IN THE

EMPLOYMENT SECTOR....AMONG OTHER THINGS, TO BE COVERED 

BY CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

So if we ACCEPT THAT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ARE NOT ABSOLUTE,

BUT ARE SUBJECT TO SPECIFIC CONDITIONS, FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD,

WHY WOULD THE 2ND AMENDMENT BE EXEMPT?

Question #3-  Given the Stated GOALS AND PROCEDURES SET FORTH BY 

THE PRESIDENT IN HIS SPEECH, TO HELP REDUCE GUN VIOLENCE, WHY

WOULD YOU CONCLUDE THAT:

-  THEY CANNOT BE ACHIEVED, OR WILL NOT

   PRODUCE DESIRABLE RESULTS?

-  THEY PRESENT AN UNREASONABLE BURDEN 

   ON THE LAW ABIDING GUN OWNER?

-  IT PUNISHES HONEST GUN OWNERS , INSTEAD OF

   REINFORCING THE RESPONSIBLE DECISIONS THEY

   ALREADY MAKE?

TO BE CONTINUED...