You are in a suburban overcrowded train station in Mumbai. While you are coming out from the ticket counter, rushing to the platform, one individual standing in queue of another ticket counter accidentally spits on your feet. You do not know this individual.
You immediately challenge him asking to know why he did this. This individual with folded hand begs pardon and says it happened without any intent on his part.
What should you do?
1. Ask him to come to the Railway Police so that a formal complaint can be lodged.
2. Rush to the platform because your train must be arriving within a short while.
3. Spit on him.
4. Forgive him and caution him to take care in future.
Noticethatactionchoice(2)dodgesthequestion.Rushingto catchthetrainmaybenecessaryforyou butsuch a responsedoesnotrevealyour moralinclination at alland as suchis an unsuitableanswer.
Action choice (3) is both foolish and unethical. That individual has been careless. You were not the target of any vengeance. So you should avoid any ‘tit for tat’ response. Gandhiji insightfully observed that a policy of “an eye for an eye” would leave the world blind. Even if the whole world does not become blind, it will have many blind people. In fact, the moral offensiveness of your action would be much more serious than the careless action of that individual. Normal instinct triggers revenge but as Confucius had said, “Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves.”
Forgiveness enables us to move forward without having to carry the ugly burden of bearing grudges. Forgiveness reduces the sum total of social costs that would otherwise accrue in its absence.
No doubt that individual has been careless and uncultured. By forgiving you would encourage him to examine his own conduct. In a situation like this forgiving is the best thing to do.
In this case, there is no evil intent on the part of the individual and he has sought forgiveness.
Therefore, action choice (4) is preferable to (1).