Make a list of:
Everyone from your Step Four whom you have harmed. Any other relationship where your conduct has been anything less than ideal.
Include anyone since the last Step Eight and anyone from the last Step Eight to whom you have not already made full amends.
Ask God to guide the consideration. For each person, take a separate small sheet of paper or index card and write. Introduction: Write out a brief description of the relationship with the person and the context. Answer the three questions:
(1) What did I do / say (or fail to do / say)? *
(2) What should I have done / said instead? **
(3) Who suffered and how? ***
Look at questions (2) and (3) for each separate answer to (1) or in aggregate, depending on what will make most sense.
In most cases, this is a simple matter. However, in some cases it’s hard to get to the answers. If you’re struggling for clarity, the notes below may help. I’m sorry they’re long: they’re designed to cover every possible situation. Scan these notes for questions or ideas that might help with your particular situation.
Regarding (1)
Stick to the facts: What would a CCTV camera have recorded? What would a sound recorder have recorded?
Don’t describe internal states (‘I resented him’) Do describe actions (‘I scowled at him and refused to answer his questions’) Don’t be vague (‘I disrespected him’) Do be specific (‘I told him his taste in clothes was terrible’) Don’t use figurative language (‘I led him up the garden path’) Do use concrete language (‘I told him the car had been serviced when it hadn’t been’) Don’t describe intention (‘I manipulated him into giving me money’) Do describe facts (‘I told him I was broke and asked for money’)
Don’t bundle in their response (‘I persuaded him to leave his girlfriend’) (persuasion involves the other person’s compliance)
Do separate out my contribution (‘I counseled him to leave his girlfriend’) Don’t describe consequences (‘I ruined his lawn’) Do describe causes (‘I drove my Landrover Discovery over his lawn’)
When describing verbal and other interactions, separately examine content, manner, tone, and timing E.g. it might have been right to express dissatisfaction but not in the tone of voice used
E.g. it might have been right to terminate the conversation but not without warning the other person you were going to put down the phone before proceeding to do it
E.g. it might have been right to interrupt but not without the courtesy of signalling the interrupt and explaining why
E.g. it might have been right to separate from a partner but not by means of a blazing row in a restaurant
E.g. it might have been right to highlight a dereliction of duty but not the moment he came in from a stressful day at work
In complex interactions, examine each contribution to the interaction separately
Regarding (2)
This question is relevant because actions are wrong only if taking a different action would have been right
For instance
Hitting someone might be right if it’s in self-defense Leaving someone might be right if to stay would cause more pain
Criticizing someone might be right if you’re their manager and you’re reviewing their performance
Sometimes realizing we did the right thing relieves us of inappropriate guilt
Just because someone else reacted badly does not mean we did the wrong thing Just because there was a bad consequence does not mean we did the wrong thing
Sometimes what we did was the best in the circumstances … … the consequences would otherwise have been far worse
The ‘right action’ …
… might stem from a universal principle (e.g. physical violence should only be a last resort, raising your voice is rarely warranted)
… might be more specific to the situation in question:
Consider what rule or principle has been broken:
Is the rule or principle a moral absolute? Or is it merely a custom or convention?
NB breaching a custom or convention can require an amend just as much as breaching an universal or absolute rule or principle
With the rule, principle, custom, or convention:
It is universal?
Or is it specific to a particular society; industry; cultural, religious, or social setting; organization; institution; family; or relationship?
Is it followed rarely, commonly, usually, or always? Do people legitimately differ in its observance? Do individuals vary over time in its observance? Am I holding myself to a higher, lower, or different standard than others? Did I overtly or covertly create a particular expectation regarding my future conduct? What would the other person have legitimately expected in the situation?
For them, was ‘the destination clearly printed on the ticket’? Examples of variation:
What is right in business is largely a question of custom and expectation in the sector in question: chartered accountants transact differently than night-club promoters
Some sections of society are untroubled by sexual promiscuity or casualness in relation to sex …
… but other sections of society are greatly troubled and offended by these Bobby and Peter might tease each other mercilessly, but to them it’s fun
… but if Andrew teases David, David might be upset because they don’t have ‘that kind of relationship’
People who are particularly vulnerable (the young, the old, and the mentally, physically, or emotionally fragile or impaired) might require particular care
Consider the respective roles of the individuals and their relationship
There can be a greater duty of care on the part of someone senior, older, or with perceived or actual authority
Play through the various alternative courses of action and consider which would have caused the least harm / avoided the harm altogether
Don’t worry if you would not have had the wit or wherewithal to act right in that situation: ask yourself only what the right thing would have been, in retrospect, knowing what you know now
Regarding (3)
In Step Eight, I look at the different types of harm I cause.
Level one: point of impact
Physical injury
Damage to or theft of property
Monetary loss
Deprivation of time
Interference, intrusion, and nuisance
Unnecessary emotional suffering
Harm to relationships with third parties
Reputational harm
Level two: relationship level
Damage to the relationship: sometimes the incident is minor, but it causes a rupture in the relationship, and it is the rupture that is the harm. That rupture also deepens the sense of separation and perception of others’ hostility, coldness, or distance.
Level three: spiritual harm
Standing in the way of someone’s development: if I remain enmeshed in an enabling situation that prevents someone from hitting a rock bottom or learning to develop their own resources, I am blocking their development.
I am also doing the same if I fail to offer help that is genuinely needed to develop.
Misdirection: especially in recovery, I can either misdirect when I disturbed or mistaken or, maybe worse, when I set a bad example through my conduct.
Increasing separation: any action which divides rather than joins, including by encouraging separation, hostility, and ill-natured opposition in discussions.