FOREWORD
Morality cannot be real or function if forgiveness is made optional or banned.
If morality is based on assumptions rather than facts that will weaken the importance of forgiveness. It is based on circular reasoning - the lie of "this is obligatory for x says so therefore x is right that it is obligatory."
Forgiveness, has vicious circles.
MORALITY IS CIRCULAR
1. Assuming a Moral Source and Then Using It to Justify Morality
When moral objectivity is justified by appealing to God’s goodness, while God’s goodness is itself inferred from the alleged objectivity of morality, the argument becomes circular.
The structure is:
God is good → therefore morality is objective → therefore God is good.
2. Using Free Will to Justify God’s Moral Authority
Arguments that appeal to free will as evidence of divine benevolence assume the very benevolence they are intended to demonstrate.
Since free will could be granted by a good, neutral, or malicious being, it cannot serve as independent evidence of moral goodness without relying on assumptions about God’s character.
3. The “Evil as Privation” View Depends on Assumptions About God
The claim that evil is a lack of good is often justified by saying that an all-good God cannot create evil.
But the inference that God is all-good is itself supported by the idea that evil is merely a lack.
Thus:
Evil is a privation because God is good → God is good because evil is a privation.
4. Treating Moral Claims as Self-Evident Without Support
Assertions such as “justice is right because it is right” offer no independent justification.
They amount to restating the conclusion in different words and therefore do not establish moral truth.
5. Appealing to Instinct Does Not Resolve Foundational Problems
If moral knowledge is grounded solely or significantly in human instinct, yet instincts vary widely, this does not provide a stable foundation for objective morality.
It risks implying that morality is valid because it reflects instinct, while instinct is trustworthy because it aligns with morality.
6. Appealing to Moral Authority Without Independent Grounds
If moral truths are justified by divine commands, but divine authority is justified by the moral truth of those commands, the reasoning loops back on itself.
Similarly, claiming “love and justice are right because they just are” avoids the circle but reduces the claim to an unargued assumption rather than a justification.
7. Ending the Moral Regress at God Without a Reason
Any foundational stopping point—be it God, harm, or some other moral fact—requires justification.
If God is selected as the stopping point simply because the system already assumes God as the source of morality, then the reasoning becomes circular.
8. Assuming Objective Morality to Establish It
If one claims we “must recognize” objective moral duties, the argument depends on already accepting that these duties exist.
This makes the justification rely on the conclusion it seeks to establish.
9. Major Theistic and Non-Theistic Theories Can Rely on Presupposed Moral Knowledge
Divine Command Theory: If goodness is defined by God’s commands, and God’s goodness is inferred from commanding good, the reasoning loops.
Morality Grounded in God’s Nature: If “good” simply means “what accords with God’s nature,” then God’s nature is assumed to be morally authoritative without independent justification.
Morality Independent of God: Some versions assume we can reliably interpret objective moral truth, which itself requires an unproven starting point.
10. God’s Nature as a Brute Moral Foundation
If God’s nature is uncreated and unchosen, grounding morality in that nature treats it as a brute fact.
Reasoning that morality is authoritative because it corresponds to God’s nature, while treating God’s nature as authoritative because it grounds morality, results in circular dependence.
11. “Ought Implies Can” Reframes Rather Than Grounds Morality
The principle that obligations require ability shows that moral rules must be actionable, but it does not independently establish what moral rules are.
If used as a foundation (“you ought because you can”), it risks turning ability and obligation into mutually reinforcing assumptions.
12. Attempts to Justify Objective Morality Often End in Unavoidable Assumptions
Efforts to ground objective morality—whether through definitions, authorities, or innate duties—frequently rely on foundational claims that are themselves unargued.
These assumptions can then appear to justify the very moral truths they presuppose, creating circular support structures.
NOW TO FORGIVENESS
Morality is useless unless we forgive. In a world of no mercy, nobody will be left alive to worry about morality. But who says a person is right to forgive?
Forgiveness in the Bible sense implies blotting out the evil. So in every sense, you try to do what would be if the wrong had never been done. It no longer exists in a sense, for you have pardoned it. Nobody really believes in being forgiving in that sense. As we will see, forgiveness is redefined as moving on.
Christianity wants to give the illusion of freedom from the consequences of sin. The sin is supposedly more than just forgiven. It is blotted out and erased. In Catholicism, you save yourself from the natural damage done by your sin—even after it is forgiven—by using indulgences. These indulgences are essentially good luck charms. The reality is that if you cut your hand off in sin, no indulgence fixes that. The sin blotted out makes no difference. What you have is the illusion that the matter is not just in the past, but is no more. In that light, we see how vindictive it is to say that anybody goes to Hell.
We can undo a wrong in our minds, but God cannot. We believe a wrong has been done, but only God can KNOW it. That KNOWING will be with Him forever. If holding on to the memory of some wrong that was done to you is a sign your forgiving is superficial and not real, then God does not really forgive. The shocking thing about superficial forgiveness is that it is the most attractive form and does have huge benefits, for it still means the person has moved on a lot from the pain. It is doubtful that anybody really forgives.
Morality cannot give authority to forgive in the real sense. Morality does not forgive. People do. Forgiveness, for them, is not about being morally right to leave wrongs in the past. It is about moving on, for you have to. Forgiveness is not about authority or even morality. It is about how we are forced to forgive a lot in order to be able to function in life at all. If we have to make a medicine to survive, and it turns out it will benefit evil people the most, we still have to make it, though they deserve to be destroyed. Justice and what we need to do are two separate things. Morality is a thief, for it steals the forgiveness horse—or the moving-on horse—and rides on it. Forgiveness is what we mostly want morality to facilitate and command, but it does not really do it. Thus attempts to base morality on the authority of a forgiving God are doomed to fail. God is by definition that which has the authority to remove sins and forgive them. God, by definition, then cannot exist and is a superstition. God, by definition, cannot be morality but offends morality by being a fake moral agent.
READ THE FOLLOWING EXPOSITIONS OF HOW OBJECTIVE MORALITY IS CIRCULAR REASONING IN THE LIGHT OF HOW THEY DEBUNK THE RATIONALITY OF FORGIVING
Many defenders of objective morality assume that forgiveness is not merely a moral recommendation but a foundational requirement—an obligation so central that without it, no objective moral system could function. Any system claiming universal authority must explain why forgiveness is required, how it can be demanded, and what makes it morally binding on all rational agents. Yet the moment forgiveness is treated as a universal moral duty, the theory must already assume the very moral framework it is supposed to justify. The following points examine how this happens: how theories that claim to ground objective morality—especially those appealing to God, reason, free will, or human nature—end up smuggling forgiveness into their foundations and then using that assumption as proof that objective morality exists. In each case, forgiveness becomes both the premise and the conclusion, revealing deep circularity in these systems.
1 — The Epistemic Access Circle
Claiming that we can know objective morality often assumes the very kind of mind required to know it.
Structure:
Objective morality exists.
Humans are capable of recognizing it.
Our ability to recognize it is proven by the fact that we recognize objective morality.
This makes our knowledge serve as evidence for itself.
It’s like saying: “My vision is reliable because I see accurately, and I know I see accurately because my vision is reliable.”
2 — The Rationality–Morality Circle
Many moral realists say morality is objective because it is grounded in reason, but then define “reason” in a way that already assumes moral truth.
Example:
“A rational agent must value fairness.”
“How do we know fairness is rational?”
“Because a rational agent values fairness.”
Reason becomes moralized in advance—so moral truth is justified by a notion of reason that was built by inserting that moral truth from the start.
3 — The Motivation Circle
A common claim:
“If there are moral facts, they motivate any rational agent.”
But then:
“We know moral facts exist because we feel motivated.”
This is circular because motivation is being used as both:
the proof of moral facts, and
the product of moral facts.
4 — The Human-Nature Circle
Some argue morality is objective because it expresses “what is good for human nature.”
But then they define what is good for human nature using moral terms.
Example:
“Cooperation is objectively good because it fulfills human nature.”
“How do we know human nature requires cooperation?”
“Because cooperation is good for humans.”
Here human nature is defined in the light of what is already morally approved.
5 — The Universality Circle
A typical argument for objective morality:
“Moral truths are objective because people across cultures converge on some values.”
But then:
“Those values count as convergence only because we already label them moral.”
If you start by selecting certain practices as “moral,” you will inevitably find global agreement on those practices.
That is selection bias turned into justification—a circular move.
6 — The “Moral Progress” Circle
People argue moral progress proves objective morality, since progress implies movement toward an objective standard.
But:
We call something “progress” only if it aligns with our current moral intuitions.
Then we use those intuitions to argue that progress implies objective truth.
Thus:
Progress is measured by morality → morality is proven by progress.
7 — The Language–Morality Circle
Moral realists often say:
We can speak meaningfully about moral facts.
Therefore moral facts exist.
How do we know our moral language refers to real facts?
Because there are moral facts.
But meaningful moral language is being justified by the existence of moral facts, while the existence of moral facts is being inferred from the meaningfulness of the language.
This is a semantic circle.
8 — The Coherence Circle
Some say morality is objective because objective moral systems are coherent.
But then they define coherence using moral criteria:
fairness
impartiality
non-contradiction
universality
So the argument becomes:
Morality is objective because it is coherent,
And coherent systems are defined as those that contain objectively moral principles.
Thus “coherence” secretly smuggles in the very morality it is supposed to prove.
9 — The Intuition Justification Circle (Different From My Earlier Instinct Point)
Moral intuitionists say:
There are basic moral truths known by intuition.
Intuitions are reliable because they track moral truths.
But how do we know they track moral truths?
Because they are reliable.
This is the loop:
Intuition → moral truth → intuition → moral truth.
10 — The Ontological Circle
Some argue morality must be objective because morality presupposes obligations, and obligations require objective ontological grounding.
But then:
The need for a grounding is inferred from the assumption that morality is objective.
Thus:
Morality is objective → therefore it needs grounding → therefore the grounding makes morality objective.
FINALLY
Forgiveness is dressed up as divine and objectively moral - it is merely psychological. See that and don't obstruct it or confuse it with ideological lies. Even if forgiveness is valid and good, the Bible version of it as effectively fixing and cleaning the past is disgraceful. It is snow over a manure heap and is passive-aggressive and dismissive of those who are hurt by others.