0

The problem, so easily, is that: To have Mercy is to abuse against myself,i.e: to loss, or to give up some rights of mine to the real abuser or the real oppressor or whoever does the act of Injustice.

This means that I manipulate the act of Injustice against myself.

Accordingly, to define Mercy as:

Reverse Injustice, is somehow inaccurate.

The accurate definition is this:

Reversed Injustice.

i.e: Mercy is already Injustice but against yourself or the oppressed, by giving up rights which are yours.

So, philosophically, we may say: Mercy is Reversed Injustice motivated by compassion and forgiveness.

|improve this question
  • If justice has no specific content one can't carry out an analysis that will yield any real content. If justice means returning punishment for a wrong, someone does you legal harm, then the law avenges you and makes the other person pay for the crime, your idea seems to work. Mercy is then not justice. It would be to remain unavenged properly and would constitute an offense against justice properly, since justice demands punishment for crimes. The good would be thought as higher than justice. Mercy would belong to the good as a special intervention and not to the orderly activity of justice. O – Joseph Lutz Oct 13 at 21:29
  • 2
    Definitions of terms are not on-topic on this site, and yours is rather unconventional. According to the dictionary, mercy is "compassion or forgiveness shown toward someone whom it is within one's power to punish or harm". It is not inherently linked to any prior injustice or abuse (e.g. mercy killing). Even when it is, it does not involve giving up a right, but exercising it. A right is not a right if one is compelled to act, that would be a duty. Choosing not to act is as much an exercise of a right as choosing to act. And it does not need to involve self-abuse, mercy is often cathartic. – Conifold Oct 14 at 8:29
  • @Conifold. I am not defining or asking about the definition. I am talking about Philosophical understanding of wrong definition from philosophical view. And I am offering a new Philosophical understanding. So, I am asking this community is my understanding right?. – salah Oct 14 at 14:38
  • Unfortunately, discussions of personal ideas and "am I right?" questions about them are also off-topic. – Conifold Oct 14 at 17:46
  • @Conifold. If you will, you will make every topic, whatever it is, whatever its seriousness, off-topic!!. Is this a site of History of philosophy, or site of Philosophers?!. – salah Oct 14 at 18:24
1

I can't readily agree that to show mercy is to act unjustly towards oneself.

... we may characterize mercy as the putative ethical value that justifies leniency in the infliction of punishment that is due in accordance with justice. Only someone who has cultivated a rational sensitivity to this value in thought, feeling and action has the virtue of being merciful. It follows that not every suspension or relaxation of a just punishment is an instance of mercy; instead, leniency must be shown for the right reasons. In the mercy tradition, these are typically glossed as reasons of charity (or, equivalently for our purposes, compassion or humanity) that have their source in the value of relieving a wrongdoer's plight. These reasons reflect a generalized love of humanity; in particular, a concern to alleviate serious misfortunes that the human condition is prey to and which, in consequence, one can regard as evils that could befall oneself or those to whom one has special ties. (John Tasioulas, 'Mercy', Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, New Series, Vol. 103 (2003), pp. 101-132: 101-2.)

In light of this, if I show mercy to someone who has acted unjustly towards me, I do not act unjustly (over again) against myself. That is to say that it is not the case that I add injustice against myself to the injustice perpetrated against me by the other person.

Rather, I am forgiving, I show compassion, charity, humanity, benevolence, to the other person. None of these responses is unjust either to the other or to myself. If I could exact just punishment, I do not act unjustly (against myself) if I suspend that punishment. I am simply motivated by other values than the desire to impose a just punishment.

On reflection I have doubts about the coherence of acting unjustly towards myself. Justice seems an interpersonal virtue, and injustice an interpersonal wrong.

|improve this answer
  • Thanks @GeoffreyThomas. I am definitely talking about the definition, to be more accurate it should be in the manner I wrote. – salah Oct 13 at 22:51
  • Of course I agree with you regarding forgiveness and tolerance and the higher values. – salah Oct 13 at 22:55
  • @GeoffreyThomas. I am sorry, I ask about the previlage of bounty. What the meaning of eligible for bounty in two days. – salah Oct 14 at 22:50
  • If you feel that your question has not received sufficient attention or comprehension, you can allocate extra points to attract further answers. You might set a 'bounty' or award of 10 points, say, with which you can reward a good answer if you get one. Bounty points will be deducted from your own points. – Geoffrey Thomas♦ Oct 14 at 23:41
  • Thanks Geoffrey. – salah Oct 15 at 0:07

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.