Derrida - how forgiving the forgivable is not forgiveness but amnesty and is often just condoning not forgiveness

The philosopher Derrida has some interesting thoughts on forgiveness. And alarming thoughts they are.

He did not think much of those who make forgiveness from God and man the centre of what they are about. 

“Neither Priests, who supposedly speak for God, nor Philosophers, who supposedly speak for Reason, should be trusted; this ‘logocentric’ claim to speak from a privileged perspective (e.g., Reason, the Word of God) is a bluff that must be called."  

If so, we are seeing forgiveness through a prism they have made and that needs re-examining.  They are not a real example of what forgiveness is about and not evidence of its power and validity. Most of how we see forgiveness comes from the examples of it we think we see.  Forgiveness in action is the biggest preacher of forgiveness but what if it is nonsense?  I'd put even God-man like Jesus in there along with the priests.  He is perhaps the ultimate bluffer.

IS THERE A PERSON TO FORGIVE?

Derrida like Hume and co thought the self is not a fixed thing. You are literally becoming a different mind and entity every moment.  So there is nothing to forgive.  There is no one to forgive.  To forgive Jack the Ripper is forgiving the self that committed the crimes and it is unjust to blame him now or say he needs forgiving or we need to forgive for the Ripper that committed the crimes is no longer in existence and the person in front of us is no longer Jack the Ripper.  For forgiveness to be possible you need to be a person and stay that person.

All that makes morality to be a social construct and every justice against a bad person is not a justice at all.  It makes forgiveness a social construct as well - it is impossible.

We have to put that aside and examine what forgiveness if possible is saying.

DERRIDA EXPLORES FORGIVENESS AS GIFT

Suppose you see forgiveness as a gift. Derrida explored this supposed gift.

He held that if a gift is a gift then the giver will hide her identity and will not allow a situation where she has to be thanked. A real gift is never reciprocated.  A real gift is broken from economy and thus is free from all demands and takes care to avoid any risk that you might get something out of it. And you can be after a reward and not realise it. A true gift cannot appear as a gift. Even the giver must not see it as a gift. Why? Because you see something worthwhile in yourself by giving the gift. So if you do not see it as a gift then you avoid getting anything at all out of giving. You are really giving.

Derrida points out that if you are hospitable you are taking people into your place that you own and thus creating a boundary and some control over them. They are treated well but as outsiders. So for him, hospitality is a bit deceptive. It is not as welcoming as it pretends.

Do not forget that forgiveness is a form of hospitality - where the evil person is given the status of a dear trustworthy friend.

Derrida said forgiveness and gift go together but there is one difference, the forgiving is about the past and the gift is given now.

FORGIVENESS IS A CONTRADICTION

Forgiveness is to be a gift. Derrida said forgiveness only happens when you see the act as unforgiveable.

A gift based on such a heavy judgement seems to be a contradiction.   It feels like something awful.  It robs forgiving and forgiveness of any joy.

For the purpose of argument, let us follow the implications that arise from assuming forgiveness is a gift. Everybody thinks it is a gift they give themselves, the other person and a gift they can receive from another.

So we are taking forgiveness as a gift.  That leads us to the next point.

Derrida holds that forgiveness is a paradox you forgive what cannot be forgiven. Anything else is not the real deal. Derrida holds that forgiveness is never completed. You have to keep forgiving the wrong done to you. It is never a once for all act.

Forgiveness that requires the other person tries to change is amnesty not forgiveness.  Forgiveness that does not require but hopes to open the door to the person changing is anticipated amnesty not forgiveness.

Derrida says that if you do not forgive you cannot be called immoral for doing so. To forgive presupposes that not forgiving is a valid moral option. You are doing what is morally acceptable whether you forgive or do not. The reason forgiveness is never a duty is because you need to forgive freely and without pressure. If forgiveness is a duty then it is a bigger duty if there is a God who commands it like the Christian God does. Thus God should be dropped. God is only a hindrance. Instead of morality being based on God, God undermines morality.

And forgiving what is forgiveable is in his thought very cheap. If an act is unforgiveable and you think it is forgiveable then you cheapen the damage done. You cheapen the wrong.

Forgiveness presupposes that some acts are so heinous they are unforgiveable. While we realise that people have to be angry with us and condemn us before they can forgive we don't want them to see us as unforgiveable even if they will forgive! 

To forgive should be a free act and how can it be unless you have the right not to forgive meaning the action is unforgiveable? If what they do is forgiveable then they do not need my forgiveness and my forgiveness does not matter.

If you calculate that an act is not bad enough to be unforgiveable then forgiving is based on a condition. "I forgive you because it is below the threshold for being unforgiveable".  It is measured. 

And if you forgive somebody for deliberately spilling a drop of tea on your couch is it really logical to say that is forgivable while if the person ate your baby alive it would not be? Both acts open the door to evil and evil is by definition a Pandora's box. The difference is only cosmetic.

If I forgive what evil you do then the evil is forgiveable. Why then did I need to forgive? Why then did the action need to be forgiven? The two questions are not the same so do not confuse them. Here is the difference.

Derrida argued that there is no value in forgiving when something is forgiveable. So you can only forgive the unforgiveable. That gives it value. You really are putting good where there is evil. He denied that if you forgive the person you must require them never to do the bad thing again.

Forgiveness only has value when it is forgiving the unforgivable. But then we have a new problem. For Derrida forgiving is a contradiction, you forgive what is not forgiveable and cannot be forgiven. There is no way out of the contradiction. If you forgive what cannot be forgiven that is a contradiction. You are either not forgiving or faking it. The unforgiveable is not forgiveable in principle. He said forgiveness is the act of forgiving the unforgiveable so forgiveness then is a contradiction.

FINALLY

If Derrida is right about forgiveness, then Christianity which celebrates it is a false religion.  It says God just forgives when the person repents.  A religion that describes forgiveness as the way forward is doing real harm if its offering is amnesty and self-deception.  Nobody denies that forgiveness is dangerous but the view that God is actively looking after us claims we should do it for we trust his plan. It needs to be true that God helps heal otherwise we have an irresponsible placebo effect going on.  Derrida has shown that God is far from effective in his care for us.