Is Forgiveness Overrated? A NY Reporter Seems to Think So

According to the Cambridge Dictionary, something is overrated when “considered to be better than it is.” The dictionary gives an example of a person who sees an award-winning movie and decides it is not so great. In the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, to be overrated is to be valued too highly. Two synonyms for overrated at thesaurus.com are “exaggerated” and “overpriced.” Recently, the New York Times (Caron, 2024) published an article with the intriguing title, Sometimes, Forgiveness Is Overrated. The purpose of this post is to philosophically examine the content of that essay in the New York Times to see if the accusation of “overrated” is accurate or—well—overrated.

Let us examine four points in the essay.

Point 1. What is the difference between forgiveness being overrated and the advice to forgive being so?

Source: Anastasiia Sai_Dreamstime, Kuanshu Designs

Nowhere in the essay is a clear distinction between forgiveness as overrated and the advice given as overrated. The author states that an encouraging new movement is underway in which writers are "erasing the pressure" to forgive. Let us take an analogy of playing the sport of basketball. If an overbearing coach pressures middle school children to practice and practice to the point of wearing themselves out, is this the fault of basketball itself or the coach’s intemperate advice?

It seems that basketball itself is innocent of all charges because the sport remains what it is regardless of how seriously or nonchalantly the adult leaders take it. This lack of distinction is a crucial point within forgiveness. Is it the fault of forgiveness itself if some people put pressure on others to forgive? The answer seems to be no because the people pressuring and forgiving are very different.

Point 2. What is the difference between what forgiveness is in its essence and the degree to which a person can practice it?

In the essay, a mental health professional is confronted by my definition of forgiveness, which, in its very simple form, is to be good to those who are not good to the forgiver. As the essay points out, forgiveness, in its essence, includes compassion, generosity, and even love toward the offending person.

Soon after this definition is introduced, we read this from the mental health professional: “Imagine saying that to a trauma survivor.” The statement is a pejorative against the definition. Yet, the philosophical error is this: Neither the writer of the piece nor the mental health commentator is making the vital distinction between what forgiveness is in its essence and what a person can offer at the moment.

Consider the basketball analogy again. The essence of free-throw shooting is to put the ball in the basket. At its highest level, basketball involves sinking 10 free throws on 10 tries because that is what the sport involves.

Yet, we have to distinguish between basketball at its highest level and how it is performed by middle school students just learning the game. A middle school adolescent might be able to make four out of 10 shots, and that is fine in terms of one’s current actions in basketball.

It would be disingenuous to present to the young person that this is all there is to basketball: the sinking of four out of 10. To be truthful to the adolescent, we can say that the point is to make the shot (all shots) and then be realistic that very few people who play the game reach such perfection. We are showing the student the difference between the essence of the game and its realistic existence (the actual performance).

It is the same with forgiveness. We do a disservice to those who want to practice forgiveness if we lower the bar of what the essence is, saying that all you have to do is reduce a little anger and, presto, you have forgiven.

Point 3. There is the claim that forgiveness “could even be harmful.”

The point in the essay is that people need time to heal and to feel their emotions. It is as if forgiveness short-circuits a time for anger and mourning. This is not the case. A part of the forgiveness process that has been in place for about a quarter of a century (Enright & Fitzgibbons, 2000) is that the first step in that forgiveness process is to allow a time of catharsis, a time of grieving, a time of confusion and the expression of negative emotions. To cut out that process of examining anger and then label forgiveness as potentially harmful is to miss an important point that forgiveness is not reductionistic. It does not ignore this initial aspect of exploring emotions and taking the time to do so.

Point 4. Forgiveness is the choice of the one offended.

There is scientific evidence that forgiveness offers both psychological and physical benefits to the forgiver, which the essay admirably references. However, this does not imply that people must listen to the advice of scientists. Forgiveness is always the choice of the one treated unfairly. The timeline of forgiving is the choice of the one injured.

Forgiveness Essential Reads

The Mystery of a Genuine Apology

On Being Prepared to "Spontaneously" Forgive the Unexpected

Philosophers refer to certain moral virtues as supererogatory. This means that such virtues are not required in societies. Forgiveness is one of these supererogatory virtues (Enright & Fitzgibbons, 2024). It does not have to be offered at all by those who choose not to forgive.

Thus, when one author is cited as stating that there is a "blanket forgiveness industry" insisting that everybody should forgive everything, this is a misunderstanding of the supererogatory nature of forgiveness. The accusation needs to be directed against those who misunderstand its philosophical quality. It is not the fault of forgiveness itself.

Source: Cammeraydave_Dreamstime, Kuanshu Designs / Adobe Stock

In Conclusion

As we examine the four issues above, it becomes rather obvious that it is not forgiveness itself that is overrated but instead is people’s misunderstanding of what forgiveness is and how to go about it for oneself or when thinking that forgiveness may be good for others. The essence of forgiveness is different from what people are usually able to achieve, especially if they have not practiced forgiveness very often. This is fine and should not be a judgment on the one forgiving. People need to be gentle in their advice toward others, as importantly implied in the New York Times essay. Forgiveness as supererogatory is the choice of the forgiver, which contradicts a "blanket forgiveness industry" that insists on it. The value of the essay is to raise red flags. The philosophical lesson in this rebuttal is to raise the right red flags, so we do not falsely accuse forgiveness of being overrated.