Forgiveness Education from an Aristotelian Realist Perspective: Can We Determine a Good Forgiveness Education Program?

Abstract

If there is no Essence of forgiveness that cuts across many religious and philosophical traditions, forgiveness psychology becomes a cultural product with no implications beyond our confined time and space. In this article, we discuss forgiveness as a moral virtue from an Aristotelian realist perspective. We first attempt to define the Essence of forgiveness that centers on beneficence that develops within and flows to others for their good. We also discuss essential components of forgiveness that should be well captured in a good forgiveness education program. Then, we present two approaches to forgiveness education, the process- and story-based approaches, and show how they provide good applications of the Essence of forgiveness with specific qualities that cannot be reduced to its parts or confused with its Accidents or Properties. Finally, we provide practical implications with a focus on how cultural applications of the approaches presented are compatible with an Aristotelian realist view of forgiveness and, in fact, enrich the practice of forgiveness.

1. Introduction

Forgiveness is a topic that cuts across many religious and philosophical traditions [1]. For instance, in the three Abrahamic traditions, divine forgiveness or the forgiveness of sins is essential to their core tenets as it concerns how God relates to human beings [2]. The theme of compassion toward others extends to Hinduism and Buddhism as well [3]. Perhaps something unique and exemplary about the field of forgiveness is that it has been advanced not only by those in religion and philosophy but also by those in various other disciplines. For instance, Exploring Forgiveness, edited by Enright and North, one of the earliest edited books on the topic of forgiveness, has 12 chapters contributed by scholars and practitioners from philosophy, religion/theology, psychology/clinical practice, sociology, education, and criminal justice/law [4]. See also McCullough et al. [5] and Worthington [6].

Scholars with various views on forgiveness contribute to the field of psychology while taking different approaches to investigating the virtue of forgiveness. For instance, the second edition of the Handbook of Forgiveness, edited by Worthington and Wade, is a comprehensive resource on the psychology of forgiveness that consists of 32 chapters with nearly 70 different contributors [7]. We certainly value different approaches, perspectives, and contributions in the field of forgiveness, but as we evaluate the past and move forward with new investigations by new scholars who care about the virtue of forgiveness, something crucial, our main contention in this article, is as follows: If we are to truly appreciate the virtue of forgiveness, we ought to search for the absolute, objective, and universal essence of forgiveness and try to capture it not only in our finite understanding but also in our application of what it is that we are trying to help others practice via forgiveness. This is important because if there are myriad and differing views of forgiveness, can we say that all of these efforts are focused on the same phenomenon?

In psychology, we note the vital connection between conceptual and operational definitions. Operational definitions must derive from conceptual definitions because the goal of operationalizing a construct is to measure that conceptually defined construct as accurately as we can (construct validity). Observations could help us refine our understanding of a construct as psychology deals with human experiences, but operational definitions alone cannot provide a conceptual definition. The point here is that we must first define forgiveness carefully, which is primarily a philosophical task. Then, we ought to measure it as accurately as possible so that the essence and the whole of forgiveness are well captured via the measures we develop. If not, we might capture specific aspects of forgiveness only (reductionism) or particular aspects of something similar to forgiveness that is not the essence of forgiveness (distortion). See Freedman for an evaluation of forgiveness psychology in this specific area of how we ought to measure forgiveness that is faithful to the construct of forgiveness [8].

In addition to the operational definition of how we measure forgiveness, the operational definition of how we implement or promote forgiveness matters, too. More importantly, the strategies to promote forgiveness must match how we define forgiveness, which is the focal point of this article. In other words, consequences matter, which often is the focus of the modern social sciences. However, instead of specific consequences justifying the process of promoting forgiveness, we argue that the process also needs to directly focus on what the Essence of forgiveness encompasses. Enright et al. argued, “…one’s definition of forgiveness will strongly influence the advice one gives on how to forgive; if the definition is flawed, the model will be flawed” [9] (p. 57).

In this paper, we attempt the following: We will first show that forgiveness is a moral virtue, provide a definition of forgiveness, and describe the characteristics of the virtue of forgiveness from an Aristotelian realist perspective. The point of relying on an Aristotelian realist perspective in our analysis is as follows: Within this philosophy, there is an important assumption of objectivity of abstract concepts such as justice, courage, and forgiveness. This makes scientific examination of these constructs possible. In other words, objectivity assumes that we can measure these constructs across persons, groups, and even cultures because something about these constructs is common to all people. Therefore, such measures can have utility in different groups and different cultures. Such objectivity allows for the establishment of scientific conclusions that are statistically reliable and valid. More modern philosophies, such as Kantianism or Existentialism, have deliberately done away with objectivity to such an extent that knowledge is assumed to be, which, in theory, would make the finding of statistical similarities almost impossible. In fact, doing science to see commonalities would be against the assumptions of relativism that modernism assumes.

Second, as Freedman [8] has shown how the definition informs the measures we develop, we will discuss, given the nature of forgiveness as a moral virtue, what forgiveness programs should contain. In particular, we examine the Enright process model of forgiveness, showing in what ways the components of the model specifically target certain elements of the virtue of forgiveness. Also, we will discuss story-based forgiveness education to show in what ways the virtue of forgiveness is well captured in that approach. Various empirical examples will be provided to show that these approaches have been supported by research across different settings.

Finally, we will end our discussion with practical implications in forgiveness education. We will show in what ways what is called the Accidents or the Properties of forgiveness can include cultural nuances that do not contradict the Essence of forgiveness but instead provide rich variations based on different cultural practices. We will provide examples by discussing the story-based approach to forgiveness education accommodated for different cultural contexts. We believe that good philosophy, good psychology, and good cultural application can all be achieved (without compromising any one of them) as we appreciate the various expressions of the Essence of forgiveness as a moral virtue in objective reality.

2. Forgiveness as a Moral Virtue from an Aristotelian Realist Perspective

Forgiveness scholars generally agree on what forgiveness is not; however, different scholars adopt different definitions of forgiveness. First, it must be clear that forgiveness cannot be all those different things simultaneously. Due to the law of non-contradiction, if two definitions of forgiveness have points of contention, then, it cannot be that the two definitions are equally accurate. There must be a definition that better captures the complex nature of forgiveness.

Second, in our attempt to understand what forgiveness is, we ought to ask what the Essence (or Species) of forgiveness is and what makes it different from other related constructs (Specific Difference). In the Aristotelian realist perspective, a definition consists of its Essence and Specific Difference, which refers to the distinct characteristics of the subject that make it unique compared to other issues under the same Genus or the “common aspect of the essence of the subject” [10] (p. 57).

Solipsism is the idea that we are only aware of what is in our subjective mind—not the reality of things that exist outside our mind [11]. Solipsism inevitably leads to skepticism because we cannot know things in objective reality that exist outside our awareness. According to this view, there is no Essence of forgiveness as forgiveness either is unknowable or becomes whatever each person perceives it to be (as it appears in each person’s mind). Similarly, nominalism is a view that there are only particulars without any unchanging Essence of things [11]. According to nominalism, there is no Essence of forgiveness but only the particulars of forgiveness confined to time and space. We attempt to understand forgiveness, discuss issues concerning forgiveness, and promote forgiveness because we reason that forgiveness exists in objective reality, is knowable, and so can be defined (however imperfect), and is different from other constructs. The Aristotelian realist perspective allows us to define what forgiveness is without falling for the temptations of certain “-isms” that make our task of defining terms futile or impossible.

Third, in our attempt to discover the Essence of forgiveness, we are not oblivious to the existence of the Properties of forgiveness that flow from its Essence (e.g., seeking and receiving an apology) and the Accidents of forgiveness often found in forgiveness but not the Essence of forgiveness (e.g., emotional benefits) (See Kreeft [10] for a complete discussion of Aristotelian Predicables: Species, Genus, Specific Difference, Property, and Accident). Cultural and situational factors of forgiveness, as well as certain benefits of forgiveness, matter, but they are not the core of what forgiveness is because forgiveness is not to be equated with its Properties and Accidents and cannot be reduced to its particulars in time and space (that exist as various expressions of forgiveness by individuals and communities).

We present the following as a definition of the moral virtue of forgiveness that centers on beneficence that develops within and flows to others for their good:

People, on rationally determining that they have been unfairly treated, forgive when they willfully abandon resentment and related responses (to which they have a right) and endeavor to respond to the wrongdoer based on the moral principle of beneficence, which may include compassion, unconditional worth, generosity, and moral love (to which the wrongdoer, by nature of the hurtful act or acts, has no right).

[2] (p. 32)

There are three components in this definition (Specific Difference): the occurrence of injustice, the abandonment of resentment, and the development of something good within to be extended toward the offender. Based on the stress-and-coping theory, forgiveness is often described as a psychological coping strategy that one employs to deal with the stress of unforgiveness [12,13]. Forgiveness certainly plays a role as a coping strategy as it helps those unjustly hurt overcome their negative emotions and move forward. In fact, many forgiveness intervention studies show that individuals who learn to forgive show improvement in the area of mental health [14,15]. However, forgiveness cannot be reduced to a coping strategy, characterized by what it does, due to its moral qualities (beyond its effects) essential to the nature of forgiveness [2]. Individuals could become angry or feel offended without the presence of another’s injustice, and there are other ways to reduce anger toward others. When talking about forgiveness as a coping strategy (because of what it does, not because of what it is), one needs to be careful not to give the impression that it is a coping strategy only. Forgiveness as a moral virtue is practiced in the context of another’s wrongdoing, involving both the reduction in anger and the development of compassion and love specifically toward the offender, which must be clearly communicated regardless of whether it would be utilized as a coping strategy that indeed helps with the stress of unforgiveness.

Forgiveness, with its focus on beneficence, is a moral virtue similar to other moral virtues such as justice, humility, and wisdom [2,16]. Moral virtues, in general, are the Genus (what is held in common) of the Species of forgiveness (what distinguishes forgiveness from the other moral virtues). In other words, Genus is a philosophical category under which forgiveness is situated with other similar constructs [10]. As a moral virtue, as it has been discussed elsewhere [2,17,18,19], forgiveness centers on what is truly good (as opposed to what appears to be good), and the forgiver (a virtuous, forgiving person) is to be motivated to do what is good specifically toward the offender (volition and affect), knows that forgiveness is good (cognition), practices forgiveness consistently to become more proficient in it (behavior), might not express it in the same degree as others do (individual variations), is not perfect in the practice of forgiveness, requiring maturity over time, avoids extremes (i.e., vices) such as hasty reconciliation and indifference to the offender, and tries to practice it consistently across different people and situations. In addition, the forgiver begins to develop a love of the virtue of forgiveness and adopts it as a part of one’s identity. See Kim and Enright for a more detailed discussion of these additional ideas [19].

Forgiveness is not a quick fix; instead, it requires patience, practice, and perseverance because that is how we not only become proficient in virtues but mature as a person marked by moral virtues. It is a choice to do good consistently over time that transforms the character of the one practicing forgiveness toward the excellence of the soul or eudaimonic well-being. As we continue to warn against the definitional drifts in the field of forgiveness, we share the same spirit with a Christian psychologist who stated as follows: “When we remove the religious context and think of forgiveness only as a clinical technique, we risk losing the essence of forgiveness” [20] (p. 210). We risk losing the Essence of forgiveness if we ignore the fact that the virtue of forgiveness has moral qualities that cannot be reduced to psychological experiences.

3. Promoting Forgiveness as a Moral Virtue via Forgiveness Education Programs

In this section, we discuss that which a good forgiveness education program should comprise. In educating the young about forgiveness, there are currently two dominant approaches: the process-based and the story-based approaches [21,22].

3.1. Process-Based Approach

The Enright process model of forgiveness, widely used in clinical settings, has four phases with 20 units/guideposts: Uncovering, Decision, Work, and Deepening [2,23]. In the Uncovering Phase, clients reflect on what happened when they were unjustly hurt and in what ways they have been struggling to deal with the aftermath of what happened. In the Decision Phase, clients learn the meaning of forgiveness and make a conscious choice to forgive. In the Work Phase, clients begin to see the offender from personal, global, and cosmic/spiritual perspectives and develop empathy and compassion toward the one who offended them. Also in the Work Phase, clients give a moral gift to the offender as an expression of beneficence. At this point, when a moral gift is extended to the offender, the process of forgiveness toward this specific offender is complete in the sense that it has reached a high level in the giving of good to those who were not good to the forgiver. Because forgiveness is a moral virtue beyond one-time practice, clients are now invited to the Deepening Phase, in which they find meaning in suffering and discover a new purpose in life.

When applied to the context of education, children and adolescents are guided through the process of forgiveness. For instance, Freedman conducted an experimental study with at-risk adolescents attending an alternative school in a Midwestern city in the United States to test the efficacy of a forgiveness education program developed based on the Enright process model of forgiveness [24]. Adolescents who met the criteria for the study were randomly assigned to either the forgiveness education class or the personal communication class, and the adolescents in the experimental condition received about 23 h of forgiveness education via 31 daily sessions. When compared with the active control group who learned about communication and conflict resolution skills without any forgiveness component (n = 11), the forgiveness education group (n = 10) showed greater improvements in the areas of forgiveness, hope, anxiety, and depression.

As an example of this approach applied in a different cultural context, Park et al. applied the process model of forgiveness in educating female adolescent aggressive victims in South Korea [25]. Aggressive victims are the ones who show aggressive behavior while also being victimized by others. Participants (N = 48) recruited from both a middle school and a juvenile correctional facility were randomly assigned to three groups: the forgiveness group, alternative treatment group, and no-contact control group. Participants assigned to the forgiveness group were guided through the process of forgiveness in a small group setting for 12 weeks while addressing each of the four phases of forgiveness. After the program, those in the forgiveness group showed improvements in anger, aggression, and delinquency. This process-based approach to forgiveness was also applied in Turkey and Iran, among other countries. For instance, Çelik and Ertürk conducted an experimental study with high school students in Turkey and found that a 17-session forgiveness education program increased participants’ levels of forgiveness and life satisfaction [26]. Ghobari Bonab et al. conducted a similar experimental study with eighth-grade students in Iran and found improvements in the areas of forgiveness, anger, and ethnic prejudice, which were maintained at follow-up [27].

Now, let us demonstrate how the process of forgiveness briefly introduced above matches the qualities of moral virtue. We are not attempting to show a complete comparison between the two, but we hope that the examples below clearly demonstrate a good match between how we define forgiveness as a moral virtue and how we promote that virtue via a concrete program. First, there is motivation to do good in the practice of moral virtue. This occurs in the Decision Phase, in which a person decides to move forward with forgiveness. There is the goodness of thinking in which the person ponders/thinks about goodness. This occurs in the Work Phase when a forgiver takes personal, global, and cosmic perspectives and develops a view that all persons, including the offender, are unique, special, and irreplaceable. There is goodness of affect or feelings toward the other, and this also occurs in the Work Phase when a person has empathy and compassion for the offender. There is goodness of behavior, which also happens in Phase 3 when the forgiver gives a gift to the offender. There is goodness in growing toward a love of virtue, which occurs in the Deepening Phase, in which the forgiver finds a new purpose in life. The Enright process model of forgiveness encourages the forgiver to develop motivation to do good and show the goodness of affect, behavior, and cognition toward the offender. Also, it encourages the forgiver to adopt forgiveness as something core to one’s own identity and to discover a love of virtue.

3.2. Story-Based Approach

The story-based approach to forgiveness education focuses on teaching the basic moral qualities linked to forgiveness via the medium of stories: inherent worth, moral love, kindness, respect, and generosity [28]. Inherent worth refers to the idea that all people, as members of the human family, possess deep worth. Moral love refers to the idea that we can love others unconditionally despite their wrongdoings. Kindness refers to the idea that we feel warmth (changes are happening in the heart) toward the other. Respect refers to the idea that we regard the other as having intrinsic value worthy of being treated civilly because of who this person is, apart from the injustice. Generosity refers to the idea that we give a gift to others generously. Children and adolescents learn about these moral qualities as they process stories together via activities and discussions in a more traditional classroom setting. As an example, in first grade (age 6), the students hear the story Horton Hears a Who by Dr. Seuss [28]. This story continually repeats the idea that a person is a person, no matter how small. Such a statement implies the inherent worth of all, which further implies that we need to respond to others with kindness and love, even if they are imperfect in their behaviors toward others. The students first learn about these moral qualities to prepare for the practice of forgiveness, and later, they apply these qualities to their offenders. In summary, they are learning, by observing the example of story characters, to demonstrate inherent worth, moral love, kindness, respect, and generosity not only to the ones around them but also to the ones who hurt them.

As an example, Enright et al., after showing that those in violence-stricken areas have a higher level of anger, reported findings from two studies that examined the efficacy of the story-based approach to forgiveness education in Belfast, Northern Ireland [29]. Forgiveness programs were implemented in Primary 3 (Grade 1 in the United States) and Primary 5 (Grade 3 in the United States) classrooms in Northern Ireland, and compared to control groups, forgiveness education groups showed greater improvement in anger for both Primary 3 and Primary 5 students and improvement in depression and forgiveness for Primary 5 students. Similar findings were discovered by Holter et al., who conducted three experimental studies with elementary-aged children in a Midwestern urban city in the United States [30]. Furthermore, the story-based approach to forgiveness education has been implemented in other cultures, such as Pakistan [31] and Turkey [32], and has shown its cross-cultural efficacy as well. As a whole, these studies show that educating for inherent worth, including such a focus on offenders, can promote children’s well-being (see [21] for up-to-date descriptions of forgiveness education studies, both story-based and process-based, and see [22] for an up-to-date meta-analytic review based on an analysis of 20 published and unpublished forgiveness education programs).

Via forgiveness education, children and adolescents not only learn to deal with the stress of unforgiveness but are also encouraged to grow in character. To again demonstrate that the Essence of forgiveness as a moral virtue is well captured in this forgiveness approach, we highlight the following points (without intending to be exhaustive with our comparisons). First, forgiveness is a moral virtue practiced toward the offender not because of but despite the offender’s actions against the forgiver. The moral quality of inherent worth captures this well. The offender is worthy as a person just because he/she is a person as part of the human community. By seeing the inherent worth of all, forgivers become motivated to extend something good even toward the offender (affect and volition). Second, forgiveness is more than abandoning anger. Via moral love, forgivers develop something good at the level of the heart toward the offender. They are encouraged to go further than what is typically expected, and as they do (via practice, patience, and perseverance), they mature in the virtue of forgiveness, gradually reaching the excellence of the soul. Third, forgiveness is not cognition or affect/emotion only. Via kindness (affect that can flow out to behavior) and respect (cognition that also can flow out to behavior), forgivers see the offender with a softened heart who is worthy of respect despite what this person has done. Also, via generosity (behavior), forgivers are encouraged to give a gift, in some concrete ways, to the ones who hurt them. By engaging with these moral qualities first in general and later specific to their own experience of the hurt, children and adolescents grow as morally virtuous individuals capable of lavish love.

4. Practical Implications

First, the meaning of forgiveness and the application of forgiveness must go hand in hand. We cannot emphasize this point enough. When helping others forgive, the correct view (orthodoxy) of forgiveness should drive the correct teaching of the virtue of forgiveness toward the correct practice of forgiveness (orthopraxy). Forgiveness, with its essential qualities, must be defined properly without any distortion. Once that is achieved, any educational programs that promote the virtue of forgiveness must encompass the essential qualities of forgiveness identified. For instance, in the case of excess forgiveness, a vice according to the Aristotelian Doctrine of the Mean, one might attempt to quickly return to an abusive relationship [17]. Educators must address the distortion of the meaning of forgiveness in this case (e.g., forgiveness is not the same as reconciliation as it is unconditional while reconciliation is not). In the forgiveness program, a discussion about the (im)possibility of reconciliation that leaves genuine forgiveness (that includes abandoning resentment and developing good qualities toward the offender such as kindness, compassion, generosity, and moral love toward the offender) untouched should be included.

Second, from the Aristotelian realist perspective, the Essence of forgiveness does not deny the Properties or Accidents of forgiveness. One person, for example, may be able to forgive very quickly, but this is an Accident that should not be expected of all people who are treated unjustly. Another person may receive an apology prior to forgiving, but this does not mean that all people now must await an apology prior to offering forgiveness. What is idiosyncratic to certain people or groups should not be confused with the Essence of forgiveness itself. If the Essence is clearly characterized and the essential components that make up the Essence of the virtue of forgiveness are clearly identified, various programs can be developed to guide the young in their journey toward forgiveness. As we have shown, the two approaches we discussed are developed with the Essence of forgiveness in mind. However, they certainly are not the only programs that can be used to promote forgiveness. Our main contention is that the Essence of forgiveness and the content of forgiveness education must match, and we discussed the two approaches that capture the Essence of forgiveness as good examples of forgiveness education programs.

Third, even then, as discussed elsewhere [21] and also shown via the cultural and religious adaptation examples provided above, the two approaches designed to promote the virtue of forgiveness offers such versatility that they can be adapted and applied to a variety of contexts. The fact that, in the published literature, they have been implemented in various cultural groups and regions, including Greece, Iran, Pakistan, and Turkey, in addition to Belfast, Northern Ireland, and South Korea, indicates that the Essence of forgiveness can remain intact even when cultural adaptations are attempted.

Therefore, we encourage people from various cultural/ethnic and religious groups to see their viewpoints and practices as strengths and attempt to use their unique wisdom and insights as well as special rituals and practices in promoting the virtue of forgiveness. For instance, the Christian version of The Adventure of Forgiveness retains the basic structure of the story-based curriculum and teaches the same basic moral qualities linked to forgiveness that we discussed [33]. However, in its Christian adaptation, more explicit Christian messages are incorporated, such as how all people are God’s children and how God loves all of God’s children regardless of their appearance, occupation, abilities, wealth, and so on. Biblical passages are supplied, providing biblical support for the idea that all possess inherent worth, and biblical characters such as Joseph, who forgave his ten half-brothers in the Book of Genesis, are introduced to help them better relate to the forgiveness stories. In contrast, in Islamic contexts such as in Iran, Qur’anic verses are used as a source of knowledge [27]. In Greece, ancient Greek literature, such as Homer’s Iliad, is employed in the forgiveness education programs [34]. These adaptations with the unique content from specific cultural and/or religious groups appear to further bolster forgiveness education without distorting what forgiveness is and what it should entail.

5. Conclusions

In this article, we attempted to highlight the Essence of forgiveness with its central qualities from the Aristotelian realist perspective. We emphasized the absolute, objective, and universal nature of forgiveness that cannot be reduced to its parts or something else (Accidents or Properties). Then, we discussed two approaches to forgiveness education and provided an evaluation of why they are good examples of forgiveness education programs. The main point we made throughout was that a good understanding of forgiveness should inform good educational programs. In other words, evaluating the content of forgiveness education is possible. Then, we offered practical implications, highlighting the importance of cultural nuances that do not contradict the Essence of forgiveness and can provide rich variations. It is our desire that, in a time of unprecedented conflicts in both local and international communities, forgiveness education will be taken up by courageous educators, adapted to their own cultural context (with the Essence of forgiveness in mind), and used as a vehicle that contributes to peace in the human heart and the family as well as between local and international communities.