There were two brothers, the older was bigger and the younger was smaller, I specify this because it is not always the case.

anyway, the older often and regularly picked on the younger one, making him feel intimidated and even smaller.

so one day, the younger brother intentionally kept picking at the older, waiting for him to get upset enough to come after him. And when that moment came, he knocked him cold with a bar bell.

after the mom took the older son to the hospital, (he was okay), she informed him she would not be punishing the younger child, because she had explained to the older brother time and time again that some day that young child would grow tired of being picked on and that is just what happened. So, although the mother in no way 'condoned' what happened and made CLEAR to the young sibling it was never to happen again, she did UNDERSTAND the details enough to use discretion in her reaction.

condone: (accept and allow (behavior that is considered morally wrong or offensive) to continue.


there are many times when we may say, "I dont condone, but I understand" to imply that we have empathy for what one has gone through, but at what point does understanding become condoning. For me, it is, as the definition says, when the behavior is allowed to continue as if it is okay and normal, when someone openly promotes, encourages, or ignores a repeated offense by a person with no action or consequence.


where is that line between understanding and condoning? where is the line between understanding and accepting? is there a line at all?

We should understand the feelings of the person but not condone how the person responds to the feelings.

To follow your logic, we would all have to have the same opinion of what is morally wrong or offensive. When we see those things different then what one would consider condoning, the other would see as acceptable. There is much grey in life and there are few hard rules that always apply.

The idea of understanding someone's feelings but not supporting their reaction seems to make lots of sense. I believe this is the key to a civil society; when we understand where the other is coming from, then we are prepared to accept compromise.

I completely agree with the importance of your distinction, but disagree with your example. What your example parent did, was she CONDONED using brutal violence to oppose harassment.

What I was hoping you would be going after with this subject area, is that it's very important to seek to understand whatever you oppose, and not just blindly condemn whatever it is.

This is a much more subtle thing to try to do, and many times when I or someone else has worked to learn about the viewpoint and reasons why someone did something wrong, such people have often been accused of condoning the wrong doing,just because they DID try to deal with the perpetrator's concerns.

Your example could be adjusted a little to fit what I'm concerned about, by having the parent punish the child who clunked the other child for their violent act, AND punish the child who set them off. It's a lot more complicated story to tell, but I think it would be more useful.

What I have come to see far too often, these days especially, have been crimes and other bad acts being excused, on the grounds that they were revenge for some OTHER crime or bad act.

Historically, that kind of thinking has always been the ultimate primary cause of a free society devolving into an oppressive and destructive dictatorship.

Ironically, this relates to your post about cults. Many cults and cult-like groups have been formed specifically as a way to attack perceived wrongdoing in the world. It's often the main reason why otherwise good and thoughtful people join cults: they think they need to excuse the BAD elements of the cult, because the cult's goal is to combat some seemingly greater evil in the world.

I mostly agree. By the way, the example was my own mom and my brothers. And her way did work, because of the relationship between her and both brothers, and the consistency of her lessons and examples to them. She taught them both not to be dumb (he could never have taken the older brother straight on) and not to allow others to mistreat them. Although he was young enough not to know the damage such an act could cause, and probably would have chosen something else if he had, the older brother learned that he had reached a limit that was not to be crossed again, and of course the younger brother never did anything like that to the older brother or anyone else again, because of the disappointment and fear he saw his mom, whom he loved, go through.

Human beings are social animals.
They look for harmony with other human beings.
That unity dictates what we condone or condemn.

Each of us condone things that we personally condemn because we are part of a society.
Society condones things that we personally condemn.

When we condemn too many things that our society condones we have turmoil in our unity. We work to try to bring society into alignment with us.
When society condemns too many things we condone, society will work to change us to preserve its unity.
And, vice versa.

A society is a group of two or more people that are in alignment.
If all society condemns something, the individuals that condone it are out of alignment and society will try to bring that person into alignment or eject that person from the society. Think education, reward, punishment or banishment.

Pure agreement stagnates.
Pure condemnation is chaotic.
Pure utopian societies will not work.
Pure dystopian societies cannot happen.

If everyone is always in agreement about all things there can be no complaints.
If there are no complaints there is no reason to change.
Without change, stagnation occurs.

To condone is to give permission for something to occur that you condemn.
We do it all the time, all over the world and on many different levels.
It keeps us from killing each other.

understand others and their perspective

Wherever it's defined by personal responsibility, behavior, and influence.


That's defined more by emotions and feelings.



There is always a line for moral and value judgments.
That's not to say it doesn't move, or warp around, or isn't subjective.