Can we have mercy without justice?

[Wootah]

Can we have mercy without justice?

To be able to show mercy to someone there has to be a law that they are violating that we are forgiving them from right?

[Divine Insight]

Can we have mercy without justice?

To be able to show mercy to someone there has to be a law that they are violating that we are forgiving them from right?

This is true. But if we forgive them for having violated a law can that be called "justice"?

In other words, mercy would itself be a violation of "justice"

~~~~~

Just for clarification: I don't necessarily agree with the common concept of "justice".

For example, let's say that I have no fire insurance on my home. One day an arson comes to my home and sets it ablaze and my house is burned to the ground and I lose the house and everything in it.

Let's say that the arson is caught, and sent to prison for say 20 years.

Has "justice" been done?

Not for me. I'm still out the house and all my belongings. Putting the arson in jail hardly did any good for me. IMHO, "justice" would be for my house and belongings to be restored.

Putting the arson in jail amounts to "vengeance" not "justice".

People tend to think of vengeance as being justice. I personally suspect that they get these kind of ideas from the Bible. The Biblical God tends to deal in vengeance rather than justice.

Therefore when the God of the Bible offers "mercy" he's really offering to refrain from seeking vengeance.

Justice seems to be totally lost altogether.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 1 by Wootah]

You cannot have mercy without the concept of justice, because mercy is the suspension of justice.

Justice is punishing someone as they deserve.
Mercy is letting someone off a punishment that they deserve.

Putting the arson in jail amounts to "vengeance" not "justice".

There is still the rehabilitation angle, the protection of society from this one arson and discouragement of others angle.

[ElCodeMonkey]

It depends heavily on one's concept of Justice. Most people see Justice as retribution and vengeance. I don't personally agree. I think Justice is mending as best as possible what went wrong. Sometimes mercy can thus go hand in hand with Justice when a person is truly repentant and the wrong is thus corrected. If someone is not repentant, mercy would not be Just. Of course, neither would be punishing someone or something else for the crime...

[marco]

Justice is punishing someone as they deserve.
Mercy is letting someone off a punishment that they deserve.

Justice, according to Plato, is giving every man his due. Justice is NOT prejudging people as meriting punishment; it is weighing all factors and then perhaps choosing mercy as the most appropriate.



The answer to the question: "Can we have mercy without justice?" is - of course. We can fail to punish appropriately by showing unwarranted clemency towards, say, some young brute whose age seems to merit special consideration. Mercy is a commodity much abused in our systems today but there's no reason why mercy and justice should oppose each other.

[Wootah]

Justice is punishing someone as they deserve.
Mercy is letting someone off a punishment that they deserve.

Justice, according to Plato, is giving every man his due. Justice is NOT prejudging people as meriting punishment; it is weighing all factors and then perhaps choosing mercy as the most appropriate.



The answer to the question: "Can we have mercy without justice?" is - of course. We can fail to punish appropriately by showing unwarranted clemency towards, say, some young brute whose age seems to merit special consideration. Mercy is a commodity much abused in our systems today but there's no reason why mercy and justice should oppose each other.

If I understand you then you are taking this to the next level.
The next level is: Mercy is unjust.

But for mercy to exist there must be a law to be merciful about.

[ElCodeMonkey]

Is it "mercy" to enable someone to wreck their lives and those of others because you "let them off the hook?" Is that all mercy is? Mercy is lack of punishment? Punishments themselves can be just or unjust. A just punishment is only just if it yields the desired results: recompense and correction. Mercy from that is no true mercy but a hidden dagger. Mercy from a just punishment is then itself unjust in secret ways since true justice takes all things into account to make it the "right" response. Mercy, then, can only be from an unjust act, not a just act.

[Wootah]

Suppose you watch another creature and its actions and everytime it can eat it does so. Then how can you know if the creature has free will?

But suppose you observe the creature not eat something straight away but still value that food source ( by storing it or sharing it or eating it sometimes) then you can say you are observing free will right?

I've felt a connection between sacrifice and free will for a while and I don't recall Jordan Peterson saying it although he is influencing my thinking.

[marco]

Is it "mercy" to enable someone to wreck their lives and those of others because you "let them off the hook?" Is that all mercy is? Mercy is lack of punishment? Punishments themselves can be just or unjust. A just punishment is only just if it yields the desired results: recompense and correction. Mercy from that is no true mercy but a hidden dagger. Mercy from a just punishment is then itself unjust in secret ways since true justice takes all things into account to make it the "right" response. Mercy, then, can only be from an unjust act, not a just act.

I think you're confusing mercy with indulgence. Parents ruin their children by not being harsh when harshness is called for. Mercy is of course a virtue, extolled by Aquinas, and linked to justice. Letting folk off the hook and freeing them from punishment may be mistaken as acts of mercy but examination indicates they are misguided. Mercy is never misguided. Good is good in any country.

If we label mercy as an unjust act we are on the side of tyranny. The famous consideration about the quality of mercy in Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice illustrates the error in considering "justice" before "mercy". During the Irish Famine of the 19th century the English Lords who evicted poor Irish tenants may have had the law on their side; but it is patently obvious that leaving children to starve, and showing no mercy, is neither humane nor just. Jesus himself pointed out that sometimes the correct thing to do is to disobey a law when it hurts others in its application.

[marco]

If I understand you then you are taking this to the next level.
The next level is: Mercy is unjust.

But for mercy to exist there must be a law to be merciful about.

Well I don't believe mercy is unjust: I think the opposite. People may act as if they are being merciful when they do more harm than good. It is best to label an act for what it is. Mercy, I think, is always something virtuous.


I don't understand the why mercy requires some law. I suspect you mean that behind all acts of kindness there is a guiding hand, else a person would never have been kind. That would suggest there's a guiding hand behind all wicked acts as well. I think civilised people act in a way that makes life workable for everyone.