Bishop Alexander talks about forgiveness in terms of liberating the aggrieved, in terms of liberating in general. Which is powerful. But is forgiveness maybe simply a matter of deontological obligation? In other words, liberation seems like it implies that forgiveness is a means to some end. Is it though, simply a duty, an end in itself?
I think that reading Bruenig's Kingdom of Damage essay in the Boston Review (which she references here) might offer some answer to your question... as I understand it, forgiveness (at least in secular society) operates as a safeguard against the apocalypse of endless cycles of retribution. Thus, yes, I think that there's some utilitarian aspect to it in modern American society where we seem to do nothing BUT seek retribution justified by the morally acceptable anger that comes with victimhood. Just my .02
Bishop Alexander talks about forgiveness in terms of liberating the aggrieved, in terms of liberating in general. Which is powerful. But is forgiveness maybe simply a matter of deontological obligation? In other words, liberation seems like it implies that forgiveness is a means to some end. Is it though, simply a duty, an end in itself?
I think that reading Bruenig's Kingdom of Damage essay in the Boston Review (which she references here) might offer some answer to your question... as I understand it, forgiveness (at least in secular society) operates as a safeguard against the apocalypse of endless cycles of retribution. Thus, yes, I think that there's some utilitarian aspect to it in modern American society where we seem to do nothing BUT seek retribution justified by the morally acceptable anger that comes with victimhood. Just my .02
But isn't liberation of the aggrieved just inherent to forgiveness?
'Promo sm' 🏃