Redemption

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Is anyone so bad that they cannot be forgiven by their society, provided they actually work on changing what's wrong with them?  Forgiving someone who hasn't and won't change isn't forgiveness, it's induglence and moral cowardice, after all.  But supposing someone does change?

Example:  George Wallace.  He was a monster, a segregationist eclipsed only by Lester Maddox.  However, in his final years, he suffered from enormous pain brought on in part by the attempted assassination in 1972 that left him paralyzed from the waist down.  Being stuck in pain in his chair, he apparently did some thinking.

A 1972 assassination attempt left Wallace paralyzed, and he used a wheelchair for the remainder of his life. He is remembered for his Southern populist and segregationist attitudes during the desegregation period. He eventually renounced segregationism but remained a populist. Wallace said that he did not wish to meet his Maker with unforgiven sin.

So not only did he renounce his personal stand on race and segregation, but in fact referred to it as a sin that endangered one's salvation.

Is forgiveness possible in his case?

If not, then there's an interesting moral implication.  If your good deeds don't count when stacked against your bad ones, then your bad deeds don't count when stacked against your good deeds.

Case in point:  Julian Assange.  By many accounts, he's a bit of a sexual predator.  This hasn't been proven, but for the sake of argument let's assume that some of the allegations are true (the ones in America or the ones in Europe, take your pick).

On the other hand, he did what nobody else had the stones to do:  He told the truth in the face of the US government's ire, and then ran like hell, laughing like a bastard.

How do the (alleged) two sides of his persona relate to each other?  Not in terms of forgiveness (if he's what he's said to be, he certainly hasn't repented it), but in terms of moral judgement?

Lastly, without the concept of forgiveness, there won't BE a lot of change for the better.  If you're already doomed, why make the effort to change?  On the other hand, if you can by great effort walk back into civilization, some people will make the effort.  People won't necessarily take the concept of forgiveness as license, because the people who are going to do shitty things are going to do them regardless.  The only question is whether they can be salvaged.

"You can come back, baby, rock n roll never forgets."
- Bob Seger

"You can never go home."
- Thomas Wolfe.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

That one is tough.

With Wallace, you'd need to know the sincerity of it - did he truly regret it, or was it one of those calculated things where he decided to be a fuckhead all his life and then let the blood of Jebus wash it all away at the last minute? A lot of people think it really works like that.
No way of knowing. I don't like Wallace, but benefit of doubt given. Maybe he meant it. He didn't live long enough after that to prove anything one way or another. Society's another story. Everybody's just going to remember those photos of him trying to keep those kids out of school.

The Assange thing reminds me a little bit of Lewis Carroll. He was squicky as FUCK, but society seems to have forgiven him.

[Shtik]

So how can a society gauge the validity of one's remorse? And to what degree should he be forgiven? I've long held that it's foolish to claim to know another man's intentions, especially those in high social standing. It is safer, and perhaps more accurate, to assume that everybody has an agenda, and will spin their words and actions to better suit their goals.

A business executive caught in a scandal, for example, will deny any wrongdoing to save face, unless confession and apology are seen as his only way to retain his wealth. If deemed insincere, he will lose his wealth, and with it his best shot at redeeming himself; but how can he be allowed a shot at redemption through action if this leaves him capable of repeating the offense?

I suppose that his fate should be decided according to the risk he presents to society if allowed to continue, and forgiveness can only be earned as a result of his actions henceforth.

Bernie Madoff scammed investors for nearly $65 billion. Had he not been sentenced to prison, perhaps he would have repaid them, and used the remainder of his fortune charitably. I would call this adequate grounds for forgiveness. On the other hand, he might have gone on to find new, cleverer ways to rob the masses. Or, perhaps most likely, he'd have cut his losses and gone on to purchase a private beach in Tahiti on which to retire and sip margaritas. As it stands, he will never have the chance to earn any sort of forgiveness, which is moot anyway. Forgiveness won't make his prison cot any softer.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I believe in forgiveness, and I believe that you don't need to see into a person's heart to accept that they've changed, if their actions and their words demonstrate that they've changed.

If Bernie Madoff claimed an awakening, professed remorse, and started speaking out against greed, I would consider him worthy of forgiveness. Although people do often say things that they don't believe, it is surprisingly difficult to maintain the opposite of a position you are arguing for.

Further, if you take, say, a lifelong racist who once preached hatred and separatism, and they renounce their former attitudes and start preaching equality and acceptance, even if they only say it once they have made enemies of everyone who once supported them, and made their only chance of finding friends the forgiveness of those who were formerly their enemies. That's a huge, huge risk and takes true transformation. There is also a huge social impact for people who may have retained pack solidarity but harbored inner doubts, seeing someone leave the fold.

So, yeah. Redemption is possible.

I don't think Madoff can be redeemed, for the simple reason that he's a sociopath. Sociopaths aren't always bad people, contrary to popular belief, but they aren't really capable of having the kinds of emotionally transformative experiences that lead to awakenings of that nature.

[LMNO]

I believe Abramoff, after getting caught, recanted, repented, and now is kind of making a career for himself by exposing the scams and backroom bullshit that he was so familiar with.

I'd call that redemption, of a sort.

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

I think there's a difference between forgiveness and re-integration into normal society. Whether someone is incarcerated for crimes or shunned for being a dickhole, people can determine on an individual basis when and how they want to forgive the wrongdoing, and on what terms. Forgiveness is an individual thing, not systemic. Governments can't forgive, but they can choose not to prosecute or reduce sentences. Those thoughts could have been expressed better but that's kinda the nugget of it.

[navkat]

The running theme is you have to do something to fix what you broke.

Death row is filled with remorseful child-rapists who killed their victims by tearing up their internal organs in their zeal. Forgiving George Wallace because he's sick and sowee is akin to racism and classim and is further enablement of white, rich men in suits doing whatever the hell they want to people because they can always hire a PR guy later and apologize.

Fuck that.

Get off your ass and go help all the people of Alabama you fucked over. I can show you some pictures of people still living in cardboard shacks around the formerly-all-black College that is now Bishop State, if you need a place to start.

Otherwise, GTFO. Damage is done, you racist fuck.

[Luna]

Seems to me that defining anybody by their behavior in any one area is a mistake.

Can Wallace be forgiven for his actions because he later repented?  I suppose that might depend on what to undo the harm he caused.  Did the fact that he was a situationist mean he was an all-round shitty human being?  Quite possible that he was a decent husband, good father, and feed stay dogs.

Same with Assenge, having the balls to do one positive thing doesn't make him a decent human being, particularly if the accusations against him are true.

Humans are human, everyone is a mix of shades of grey.  How it balances out can be a master of perspective, especially where things run close to even.  Hitler may have been kind to dogs, but, in general, he is usually considered a pretty shitty human.

Of course, what makes him a shitty human in the eyes of many people makes him a hero in the eyes of others.  Perspective.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

The running theme is you have to do something to fix what you broke.

Death row is filled with remorseful child-rapists who killed their victims by tearing up their internal organs in their zeal. Forgiving George Wallace because he's sick and sowee is akin to racism and classim and is further enablement of white, rich men in suits doing whatever the hell they want to people because they can always hire a PR guy later and apologize.

Fuck that.

Get off your ass and go help all the people of Alabama you fucked over. I can show you some pictures of people still living in cardboard shacks around the formerly-all-black College that is now Bishop State, if you need a place to start.

Otherwise, GTFO. Damage is done, you racist fuck.

Was that necessary? Was that REALLY necessary?

I mean, I don't normally object to horrifically graphic verbal descriptions of inutterably terrible sexual violence to kids, because most of the time when people say shit like this there's an actual good reason to be dropping it into conversation. But you do this shit ALL THE TIME and it makes me wonder whether you ever stop to think, hey, do I really need to say something that grotesque to make my point in this case, or might I simply be dropping an incredibly ugly piece of mental imagery with a very high probability of triggering horrible memories in anyone who has ever been abused and simply disturbing the shit out of anyone who hasn't into an otherwise innocuous post where it isn't anticipated?

Basically, keep it up and I'm going to put you on ignore, simply because that's not actually a mental image I need laid on me out of the blue and it isn't by any means the first or second or even third or fourth time you've done it, or that anyone has said something about it.

Fucking hell.

[Jez]

I believe in forgiveness, and I believe that you don't need to see into a person's heart to accept that they've changed, if their actions and their words demonstrate that they've changed.

If Bernie Madoff claimed an awakening, professed remorse, and started speaking out against greed, I would consider him worthy of forgiveness. Although people do often say things that they don't believe, it is surprisingly difficult to maintain the opposite of a position you are arguing for.

Further, if you take, say, a lifelong racist who once preached hatred and separatism, and they renounce their former attitudes and start preaching equality and acceptance, even if they only say it once they have made enemies of everyone who once supported them, and made their only chance of finding friends the forgiveness of those who were formerly their enemies. That's a huge, huge risk and takes true transformation. There is also a huge social impact for people who may have retained pack solidarity but harbored inner doubts, seeing someone leave the fold.

The problem with that is that people are naturally suspicious of someone whose beliefs change radically.

If a white supremacist bombed black churches for half of his life, then suddenly offered to start building them, I would wonder if he's just using his turnabout to gain access.  It takes very forgiving people to open their arms to the people who have hurt them.  I'm not that trusting, and I assume a lot of people who have seen evil aren't, either.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I believe in forgiveness, and I believe that you don't need to see into a person's heart to accept that they've changed, if their actions and their words demonstrate that they've changed.

If Bernie Madoff claimed an awakening, professed remorse, and started speaking out against greed, I would consider him worthy of forgiveness. Although people do often say things that they don't believe, it is surprisingly difficult to maintain the opposite of a position you are arguing for.

Further, if you take, say, a lifelong racist who once preached hatred and separatism, and they renounce their former attitudes and start preaching equality and acceptance, even if they only say it once they have made enemies of everyone who once supported them, and made their only chance of finding friends the forgiveness of those who were formerly their enemies. That's a huge, huge risk and takes true transformation. There is also a huge social impact for people who may have retained pack solidarity but harbored inner doubts, seeing someone leave the fold.

The problem with that is that people are naturally suspicious of someone whose beliefs change radically.

If a white supremacist bombed black churches for half of his life, then suddenly offered to start building them, I would wonder if he's just using his turnabout to gain access.  It takes very forgiving people to open their arms to the people who have hurt them.  I'm not that trusting, and I assume a lot of people who have seen evil aren't, either.

That's why it's such a risk for someone to switch sides like that... they will definitely alienate their former cronies, and will certainly have a hard time making friends in the community they once preached hate for.

That kind of turnaround takes a lot of commitment, because it will, essentially, buy you the life of a pariah.

[LMNO]

Unless there's some long con happening, however, isn't doing something positive for cynical reasons functionally no different than doing something positive for honest reasons?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Unless there's some long con happening, however, isn't doing something positive for cynical reasons functionally no different than doing something positive for honest reasons?

Yep, pretty much is. Plus, doing something positive for cynical reasons has this tricky way of turning honest because our behaviors influence our attitudes whether we want them to or not.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Unless there's some long con happening, however, isn't doing something positive for cynical reasons functionally no different than doing something positive for honest reasons?

Yep, pretty much is. Plus, doing something positive for cynical reasons has this tricky way of turning honest because our behaviors influence our attitudes whether we want them to or not.

Yep.  Even smiling makes you feel better¹, when you force yourself to do it.




¹ Except for LMNO.  Smiling makes his face ache.   

[Jez]

That's probably true.  I'm biased pretty far toward the cynical end of the spectrum on this topic.