Humans have all been victims of wrongdoing. Forgiving that wrongdoing is one of the staples of current pop psychology dogma; it is seen as a universal prescription for moral and mental health in the self-help and recovery section of bookstores. At the same time, personal vindictiveness as a rule is seen as irrational and immoral. In many ways, thinking on these issues is deeply inconsistent; forgiveness is valued at the same time now use victim-impact statements to argue for harsher penalties for criminals. Is there any right in humans to hate others for what they have done? The book takes a s ... More

Humans have all been victims of wrongdoing. Forgiving that wrongdoing is one of the staples of current pop psychology dogma; it is seen as a universal prescription for moral and mental health in the self-help and recovery section of bookstores. At the same time, personal vindictiveness as a rule is seen as irrational and immoral. In many ways, thinking on these issues is deeply inconsistent; forgiveness is valued at the same time now use victim-impact statements to argue for harsher penalties for criminals. Is there any right in humans to hate others for what they have done? The book takes a skeptical view when it comes to ideas on both emotions. This book proposes that vindictive emotions (anger, resentment, and the desire for revenge) actually deserve a more legitimate place in emotional, social, and legal lives than that which is currently recognized, while forgiveness deserves to be more selectively granted. The book grounds these views on careful analysis of the nature of forgiveness, a subtle understanding of the psychology of anger and resentment, and a fine appreciation of the ethical issues of self-respect and self-defense. It also uses accessible examples from law, literature, and religion to make various points.