Did the Baudelaire forgive Olaf?

[tonyvfd]

Lemony Snicket mentions that, despite all the cruel things he did to the Baudelaires, they would sometimes still visit Count Olaf's grave and merely stand silent for a few moments

What's your personal opinion on this .Despite all the unfortunate events in their lives I don't see the Baudelaire as bitter children.Could it be that they sincerely forgave olaf?
I mean the guy is dead what can they accomplish cursing his memory

On a related note if the harpoon wound had not been fatal. do you think they would have help him or let him bleed to dead?

[Dante]

I think, at the very least, that the Baudelaires accepted him, as a complicated human being with his own history and feelings, flaws and faint glimmerings of higher sentiments - rather than regarding him as just the devil, as they had for so long.

I also think, had they time to spare while treating Kit, then yes, they would have helped Olaf. After all, they weren't happy about abandoning him to drown on the coastal shelf, either, even while he was at his worst. But Olaf was racing towards his own destruction throughout the book; I don't think he cared any more.

[Foxy]

Mar 15, 2019 20:31:05 GMT -5 tonyvfd said:

I mean the guy is dead what can they accomplish cursing his memory

Exactly. 

Sometimes when I read that part about the grave, I think, "Oh, yeah.  They forgave him."  And then I think about all the horrible things Olaf did to the Baudelaires, hunting them down and trying to kill them.  Even after Kit says one act of kindness can't erase a lifetime of wickedness, or something of that nature, Olaf says he didn't apologize.  Personally, I don't think you can forgive someone who isn't sorry.

I don't think they would have let him die, and I don't think he would have changed, no matter if he had lived another many years.

[The Seer]

I think another important query here is not whether the Baudelaires have forgiven Olaf, or even if they should've. These questions are based off of pondering the ethics of others — why don't we discuss whether we forgave Olaf, or if he should be forgiven? Personally, I think... yes. Olaf has done many, many horrible things. He refused to apologise. However¹, His life ended with him doing an act that was selfless and done for the sole purpose of love². Also, on a much more philosophical note, we must consider that to forgive is divine³, and that if we try to be more forgiving in life, we further the opportunities for others. To not forgive increases someone's anger towards you, and to not forgive reduces the chances of the accused to redeem themselves. One could argue from the ethical house⁴ of punishment philosophy, saying that Olaf has done bad things and should be punished⁵. However, punishment is just as foolish as vengeance. Perhaps one may say we should debate whether Olaf is a good person, not whether he should be forgiven. To this I say that deciding someone's morality is something nobody has the right to do.

---

¹I am finding myself struggling to argue against my arguments.
²Cheesy, yes, but touching.
³I am not religious, but I find that theology has some very interesting findings on morality.
⁴Yscolan, Get my clever reference? 1992, publius
⁵Let's assume for the sake of the argument that he survives.

[Mr. Dent]

If that's the game, then I certainly do not forgive Olaf. Saving the life of one person doesn't make up for the many, many lives Olaf took. Forgiveness isn't owed, and neither the Baudelaires nor myself have any reason to forgive Olaf. He is a terrible, horrible man who did one good thing at the end of his life.

I don't think that the Baudelaires would have let him die if they had a say in the matter, but that's rather different than forgiving Olaf for all he's done.

[The Seer]

Apr 17, 2019 7:50:25 GMT -5 Mr. Dent said:

If that's the game, then I certainly do not forgive Olaf. Saving the life of one person doesn't make up for the many, many lives Olaf took. Forgiveness isn't owed, and neither the Baudelaires nor myself have any reason to forgive Olaf. He is a terrible, horrible man who did one good thing at the end of his life.

I don't think that the Baudelaires would have let him die if they had a say in the matter, but that's rather different than forgiving Olaf for all he's done.

Does forgive mean to judge character or to treat them like they could be better?

[Mr. Dent]

To me, to forgive is to absolve or exonerate someone from their wrongdoings. Basically, forgiving Olaf would mean looking past the way he constantly murdered the decent and noble people who tried to help them, and saying that all the trauma and strife he brought them doesn't matter anymore. But the thing is, it does matter, and the horrible experiences he put the Baudelaires through shaped the people they grew into and will always be a part of them now.

Even if that weren't the case, I don't think the Baudelaires would forgive Count Olaf. He saved two lives, yes. (Not selflessly, I don't think that quite fits here. The only reason he saved Kit was because he was in love with her, he absolutely wouldn't have bothered if it were, say, Friday dying.) But he ended more lives than one can count, and inflicted barbarous and malicious cruelty on dozens of people, including innocent children.

The Baudelaires will always remember Count Olaf as a vile, evil man. Their experiences weren't leading them to ultimately forgive Count Olaf, but rather understand him. They didn't learn to see Olaf as a noble person who had a little bit of a rough patch, but rather a terrible villain who had the capacity for good once. They went from seeing him as this terrible boogeyman, to seeing him as a complicated human being who's actions have precedent and originate someplace very close to home.

But that doesn't mean they forgive him. Nor does it mean he should be forgiven.

[Uncle Algernon]

“You are a wicked man… You really thik one kind act will make me forgive you all your failings?”

“…I haven't apologized.”

Seems relevant.

[The Seer]

Apr 18, 2019 12:47:24 GMT -5 Mr. Dent said:

To me, to forgive is to absolve or exonerate someone from their wrongdoings. Basically, forgiving Olaf would mean looking past the way he constantly murdered the decent and noble people who tried to help them, and saying that all the trauma and strife he brought them doesn't matter anymore.

I believe you contradict yourself here. If to forgive is to exonerate from wrongdoings, it doesn't mean that the crimes they have committed are looked past. It means that the crimes are acknowledged and weighed, and it seems that this person could become better. Olaf murdered people, yes. Olaf is a bad person. However, could Olaf do better? If the answer there is even a little bit yes, than forgiveness is in order.

[tonyvfd]

"To forgive is an act of compassion,buffy. It's not done because people deserve it, it's done because they need it."
-Rupert Giles, BTVS-



The world of asoue seems to be morally grey so where do we draw the line? aren't kit and Beatrice murderers themselves?

[The Seer]

Apr 18, 2019 20:04:32 GMT -5 tonyvfd said:

"To forgive is an act of compassion,buffy. It's not done because people deserve it, it's done because they need it."
-Rupert Giles, BTVS-



The world of asoue seems to be morally grey so where do we draw the line? aren't kit and Beatrice murderers themselves?

I don't think we do draw the line. To judge someone as incapable of becoming better requires a worldview that brings mistrust, seeds discord, and causes things like the schism.

Tony, that's an excellent quote.

[Mr. Dent]

We must have wholly different definitions of forgiveness because in my mind, forgiveness isn't directly related with the capacity for improvement someone has. Everyone could be better, that's just the truth. Forgiveness to me as more to do with the actual grievances one has with someone, and about whether or not those problems will continue to affect the parties involved. Forgiveness isn't owed or even earned. Nobody inherently deserves forgiveness because of what they have or have not done. It's entirely up to the parties involved to decide. I don't think the Baudelaires or the reader have any obligation to forgive Olaf.

That's a nice quote, but it's not entirely applicable in this case? Who needs Olaf to be forgiven? The Baudelaires aren't exactly in danger of like. Being consumed by hatred or anything. Olaf certainly didn't need it- he hated the Baudelaires to his dying breath, and cared more about being in the company of the one he loved as he passed. It wasn't Kit either, she made it clear she didn't forgive Olaf.

[Foxy]

I think forgiveness is when someone says they are sorry, and you both agree to move on and not keep bringing up the past. But I also think if someone keeps doing the same bad thing to you over and over again, then they aren't sorry. Being genuinely sorry means you are going to try to change (but sometimes you still might fail.)

I don't think what happened between the Baudelaires and Count Olaf meets that criteria. But Handler might have a different idea of what forgiveness is.

[Grace]

Also, part of the Baudelaires growing up included realizing that Olaf was a product of his environment, was orphaned like them, and just wasn't as lucky as they were to have support in the form of their siblings and moral backbone. He is to some extent a victim of VFD, like they were. Of course he's responsible for his choices and crimes, but context matters, and the Baudelaires have finally realized that nothing exists in a vacuum, just like there are no wholly bad or good people. I think Olaf's existence makes them sad, which is why they stand for a minute at his grave. He's come to symbolize corruption to them. I think they forgive him in the sense that they no longer feel resentful or angry toward him, but they don't excuse his behavior or think of him fondly.

[The Seer]

Apr 20, 2019 18:23:26 GMT -5 Mr. Dent said:

We must have wholly different definitions of forgiveness because in my mind, forgiveness isn't directly related with the capacity for improvement someone has. Everyone could be better, that's just the truth. Forgiveness to me as more to do with the actual grievances one has with someone, and about whether or not those problems will continue to affect the parties involved.

That's a nice quote, but it's not entirely applicable in this case? Who needs Olaf to be forgiven? The Baudelaires aren't exactly in danger of like. Being consumed by hatred or anything.

I think there's another contradiction here. If forgiveness isn't directly related with capacity for improvement, then why does it have to do with whether the problems will continue to affect people? It seems to me that capacity for improvement and if problems will continue are the same thing, at least when one distances oneself from pedantics. Though I may just not understand your point. In response to the latter point, I'd say the Baudelaires do need to forgive him. The Baudelaires have made all sorts of ethical decisions to the point where they could even be called Machiavellian, if not for their guilt and hesitation. I think they are (or at least wish they could be) deontologists¹. As not forgiving is in direct contradiction to deontology, the guilt that already plagues them would be worse if they didn't forgive him. The fact that maybe they didn't could be why they go to his grave, as maybe they wish they could've forgiven him while he was alive. Maybe they fear that they still wouldn't have forgiven him if he did live. Grace made the excellent point on this but I didn't want to have to finagle with the quoting mechanism any more that I had to.

---

¹In case you aren't familiar with the term, deontology refers to the ethical philosophy of taking the action that is good in the moment. As utilitarianism preaches taking action that results in greatest possible good, even if it means taking a bad action in the moment, deontology would carry out whatever action does good right then and not for long-term good. Some see it as foolish, but the argument over the validity of specific ethical beliefs is one I will not launch into unless someone else brings it up. Edit-- I apologise if this addition is condescending. I just wanted to clarify my definition of the term in case anyone was confused