Simon Wiesenthal's question “What would you have done” if you had the opportunity to forgive a Nazi soldier forces humanity to understand and apply our moral repertoire. By my moral repertoire I mean the set of moral beliefs that informs our understanding of forgiveness and the criteria by which we evaluate it. Karl the Nazi soldier, who begins our investigation into forgiveness, represents multiple identities. He is at the same time a rational human being, a member and supporter of the Nazi army, a murderer, an actor and a representative of the state. Because of the simultaneous occurrence and fluidity of these identities, conflation is an easy mistake in constructing exactly who we are forgiving. Forgiving Karl as an individual is very different from forgiving the Nazis or the state represented by Karl. Lawrence Lager also writes in the Symposium “It seems to me that, by refusing to extend forgiveness to the guilty, Wiesenthal unconsciously recognizes the indissoluble bond that unites the criminal to his crime” (The Sunflower 178). The conflation of what Karl represents is a large part of what makes Wiesenthal's question so vexing because the rules of forgiveness change depending on the actor. Karl as an individual is owed some considerations simply because of his humanity, while the Nazis and the state represented by Karl are involved in political considerations. To forever label Karl a murderer gives up his still-present humanity. This is not to say that forgiving Karl as an individual is not political, or that we should not recognize the enormity of his crime. This is to underline that the limits and criteria of forgiveness change whether it is from person to person or from person to political bodies. This separation of the individual from the states... move forward and be “free”, as one of the speakers at the symposium says. To wallow in bitterness and despair is perhaps rather than acknowledging what has happened, mourning what was a loss and beginning the process of rebuilding. Louise Mallinder in “Can amnesties and international justice be reconciled?” postulates the following hypothesis: “Amnesty for lower-level offenders could also mean that in their daily lives, victims often find themselves confronted with the individuals who caused their suffering, which could cause further harm to victims and even lead them to engage in vigilantism” ( 210). Forgiveness is not physical and can only be manifested through words, actions and shared understanding. These traits give forgiveness a spiritual quality that illustrates how it can transcend physical atrocity; make the unforgivable forgivable.