Jonah Lehrer Indirect Apology Summary

of the information obtained for this paper was retrieved from a textbook for which the

In Simon Wiesenthal’s The Sunflower, he recounts his incidence of meeting a dying Nazi soldier who tells Simon that he was responsible for the death of his family. Upon telling Simon the details, Karl asks for his forgiveness for what he helped accomplish. Simon leaves Karl without giving him an answer. This paper will argue that, even though Karl admits to killing Simon’s family in the house, Simon is morally forbidden to forgive Karl because Karl does not seem to show genuine remorse for his committed crime and it is not up to Simon to be able to forgive Karl for his sins. This stand will be supported by the meaning of forgiveness, evidence from the memoir, quotes from the published responses to Simon’s moral question, and arguments from

The paper will begin with a Review of the Research. This section will summarize all the information gathered for this paper. Here the background will be given and the foundation laid for the rest of the report. Next will be the Application of the Research. This is

The characters that rebuff publicly are the ones who deal with guilt in private. For instance, General Macarthur is one of these characters. He thought it was someone’s idea of a sick joke. Macarthur states, “The whole thing is preposterous-preposterous! Slinging accusations about like this!

I) Conclusion: Write the conclusions regarding your observations and results obtained from each part 2A, 2B, 2C,

The conversation between Wiesenthal and Bolek is another example of forgiveness is necessary. When Wiesenthal tells Bolek of what he experienced in the dying SS man’s room, Bolek says he describes it as a man who showed signs of “repentance, genuine, sincere repentance” (Wiesenthal 82). He means that Wiesenthal believes the dying SS man’s apology was sincere. He believes that Wiesenthal seen his apology as genuine and that he deserved the “mercy of forgiveness” (Wiesenthal 82). Wiesenthal spots a sunflower behind a bush, he takes it as the sunflower has come to “remind [him]” (Wiesenthal 84) of what he describes as a “feeling of duty” (Wiesenthal 84). Wiesenthal “duty” (Wiesenthal 85) and his planning on visiting the mother of the deceased SS man show that he is beginning to realize that he needs to come to terms with his experienced at the hospital in Lemberg. He visits her for closure and ultimately to decide within himself if he should finally forgive the man responsible for the murder of hundreds of innocent Jewish people.

The introduction provides sufficient background on the topic and previews major points. The conclusion is logical, flows from the body of the paper, and reviews the major points.   Readability and Style  15 percent Percent Earned Comments:

The book Apology begins with Socrates making a short speech in which he defends his innocence. He was on trial because of the two “Later” charges against him. Corrupting the youth and disbelief in Athenian gods were among the charges. Before he began his speech, he made it clear to the judges that he is not familiar with the court system and also that it’s his first time in court so that he will be speaking in his “usual manner”. His accusers warned the judges that he has a great persuasive power. However, Socrates insisted that he makes no claim of being so persuasive in his speeches. He stated to the judges that, he doesn’t exaggerate or give false information to mislead them. He told the judges that, his accusers should be ashamed for even suggesting that he would mislead them by the force of his persuasive skills. Socrates insisted, the only type of eloquent language he will use will be truth. He asked the judges to deliver justice and justice only, and to avoid considering his manner of speech. Socrates presented two arguments to defend himself from the charges.

For this paper, it is necessary to distinguish several of those forms, which vary in severity. First, there is the simple white lie, which is defined as “a trivial lie that is told for diplomatic or well-intentioned reasons.” These are typically inconsequential responses made in an effort to preserve one’s feelings, such as in the cliché case of a spouse asking, “Do these jeans make me look fat?” They rarely have any lasting effect, and are, for this argument, considered moot. On the other side of the scale is the outright lie, also known as deception, which is “a sender intentionally trying to get someone to believe something that the sender knows to be false” (Gass & Seiter, 1999). These lies are the sort that have most often garnered scorn, as they are typically malevolent (or at the very least, selfish), and utilized to serve a personal end. We will see that this is not always the case, but for the sake of argument, the “outright lie” will begin as an evil. Lying, as a whole, is perceived negatively, because it is most commonly used in negative instances because the sender wants to protect themselves from pain and embarrassment. It is the attempt to avoid punishment or retribution that spurns most people to lie, and therefore, the concept of speaking such an untruth became associated with the consequences of something injurious, and is frowned upon. The

The third step of the model is the “Promise of Forbearance” (Bisel, 2017). It can be easy for a person to apologize for an offense and then move on with their lives. However it is far more important to the offended if the offender can prove that they a thoughtful of their apology and willing to make a change. I first ensure Ms. Johnson that the incident will not happen again, and then I list my reasons for how The Duck Club will stay accountable to that promise. I list out the steps the restaurant will take to make sure a similar accident does not happen, which includes addressing the issue with the employee, and improving the training of future employees. In taking these actions, I hope Ms. Johnson will feel as if the apology is meaningful. Finally I complete the OOPS model by “offering to restore”, which involves the offender proposing a way to make right of the situation (Bisel, 2017). To do this, I simply offer Ms. Johnson three free coffees. By doing this I am not causing any financial burden to The Duck Club, but am still able to offer reparation to Ms.

The writer finds two problems that are going too analyzed in this study. In addition, the problems are:

Results of a 2 (offender remorse: no apology or apology) x 3 (transgression frequency: first-time, occasional or regular) between groups factorial ANOVA on forgiveness levels revealed a significant main effect of offender remorse, F(1, 54) = 70.93, p < .001, η2 = .35. This indicated that overall, offenders who apologised (M = 5.53, SD = 1.17) elicited significantly higher rates of forgiveness than offenders who did not apologise (M = 3.73, SD = 1.34).

The given theme has been investigated by us for two years. Thus from abstract work it has developed into scientific research to what the volume of the material we provide testifies.

The article has been written by Khalil, Cohen, and Schwartz. The main purpose of this paper is to make

During research of this topic, a problem statement has been formulated that I believe requires some researching into. As with any problem statement, it needs to address the 6 questions that always would get asked concerning research worthy problem statements namely.