Article Response

Forgiveness is a crucial element in the human psychology and a main reason why civilization is able to survive. Everyone makes mistakes and there is not one person on planet earth that is perfect, so the act of forgiving is necessary. The Michael Vick dog fighting case exemplifies the theory that everyone deserves a second chance and should be forgiven for past actions. In this article Dana Scarton tries to convince the reader that the actions of Vick were in fact despicable but that everyone makes unintelligent decisions and like everyone else, Michael Vick should be considered for forgiveness.
Michael Vick is just recently completed his twenty three month long jail term sentence for the involvement with the act of dog fighting. He has apologized to his family, fans, the National Football League, and society for his disturbing actions. Vick has said that he is in fact a changed man and displays that with his new involvement with the Human Society of the United States. Dana Scarton believes that these deep apologies are all that is needed for Vick to be forgiven by the public. It is his reputation and his image in the public eye that is the main thing on the line. She goes on in the article to share: advice from authority figures, theories, statistics, and studies, to try and persuade any reader that still holds a grudge with Michael Vick to move on, accept his apology, and forgive him.
The Michael Vick trail has divided followers of the case into two different groups with contrasting views on how Vick should be looked at. Dana Scarton is a member of the side that believes Vick should in fact be considered for another chance and should not be looked down upon by the public eye. Scarton’s side views it as the healthier choice and the right thing to do. The contrasting argument believes that if he is forgiven that easily he will not learn from his past mistakes. The other side views Vick as an evil person who has done disgraceful acts that should not be forgiven. Jeanne Safer, the author of “Forgiving and Not Forgiving: Why Sometimes It's Better NOT to Forgive” is on the contrasting side of Scarton’s argument. She believes that forgiveness is not the healthier and wiser choice for certain situations. Instead of forgetting about past actions, Safer thinks it would be better to revisit the wrong, because forgiving could lead to guilt and anxiety. Both sides make valid points, and there is not a true winner to the argument, but Scarton describes what she believes as the correct course of action in the article.
One argument that Scarton uses is that forgiveness is healthier that holding a grudge. In a Mayo Clinic consumer publication, the word “forgiving” is described as, “acknowledging hurt and then letting it go, along with the burden of anger and resentment.” It has been recorded that forgiveness leads to better results in cardiovascular performance, nervous-system health, and immune function. Charlotte van Oyen Witvliet, a psychology professor at Hope College in Michigan, did a study with the results showing that grudges lead to higher blood pressure in contrast to forgiving responses. Also Frederic Luskin, a health psychologist and director of the Stanford Forgiveness Project, said,” If every time you see Michael Vick take the field you boo and say nasty things at the top of your lungs, you are flooding your system with stress hormones.” All these arguments and authority figures that Scarton uses aids her main argument that Mike Vick should be forgiven.
As there are in any argument, Scarton’s view on the course of action she believes is necessary dealing with Michael Vick has its flaws. She does not have any notable factual errors, and does have logical errors. Is a grudge with him actually going to do harm to one’s body? That is taking the argument to the extreme and could be viewed as going overboard in the argument. Also Vick is not going to be the first player to get booed at during a game, a great portion of fans has players and teams that they do not like and boo. The booing of him will not do drastic harm to one’s body, especially because a lot of the people who are going to boo Vick when he is on the field will also be booing other players because they are playing against the fan’s favorite team.
If I was making the argument that Michael Vick should be considered for forgiveness I would look more closely to the humane and moral arguments that the physical arguments about the health hazards. Even if they are true, I do not believe they are convincing to the average ready and are actually hard to even take seriously. I think the physical damage it could do the body hurt the argument because some people could think of it as a joke and not a good reason at all to forgive Vick. If I would edit the article I would add survey results of different groups of people on if they would forgive Michael Vick. If it was done by different professions like priests or police men then I think it could convince people to choose the side they think is best. Although mentioned and explained in the article, I believe more emphasis should be put on the moral aspects of forgiveness. I think that Scarton should describe how without forgiveness there would not be a rational society, but instead a world of uncivilized people and procedures.
Dana Scarton does a phenomenal job in giving the reader both arguments and what works and what does not work in each theory. She uses authority figures to strengthen the arguments and to provide contrast in the two different stances. I believe that it is a personal choice on if Michael Vick should be forgiven or not, but my stance on the situation is that everyone deserves second chances and that he should be forgiven.