Justice vs. Mercy

There is a long-standing assumption that justice is a more objective position and mercy requires empathy and personal investment in resolving a scenario. I view it from a different perspective and would like to test my thinking against other views.

In my observations of both individuals and society, justice is dependent on a more singular vantage point and set of values. When an individual feels anger when their rights are violated, they seek justice and punishment for the offender. Justice imposes one set of values on another set of values.



Individuals commit violations because in their mind it is "just" based on their personal experience and the distortions in their perceptions that result. The people who violated me in my life perceived me as something deserving of those violations. They typically viewed it as justice. There appears to be a drive in each person to balance their personal equations by punishing others. I have done it, but only when my comprehension was most limited.

By contrast, mercy acknowledges that there are different vantage points and that each individual is a unique system with its own set of values. It is about not imposing one system on another. Distortions in perception that result from taking a negative experience and imposing it on a new experience are at the root of most violations. It spreads much like a virus in this way. By viewing the conflict from multiple vantages points, there is less of an impulse to mirror and reflect back the violation, but to build up immunity by becoming its opposite.

 

Thanks for the replies. One thing I should mention, I'm not necessarily implying that there is never a place for justice at the individual or societal level, but that it is best viewed for what it is - imposing one's values on another. The only way I see it not being that is if one could prove there are universal values that exist apart from perception.

Whether a tornado destroys my family or an individual who has been psychologically distorted through experience, either way the violation occurred as a result of a series of cause-and-effect relationships. There is reason to take precautions to prevent further damage from the tornado and/or murderer, but what is the role of punishing either source except to indulge an overcompensation for a previous lack of personal power to prevent the violation? If the punishment could alter the murderer to prevent further damage whereas it couldn't the tornado, then that is a reason to act on the murderer, however the anger at either event appears equivalent to me. If my acting on the murderer makes me become more like him, then I have balanced my violation equation by becoming an equal violator. It internalizes the violation and perpetuates it. It could be something like punishing a tornado by dropping a bomb on it and causing equivalent or worse damage than the initial tornado.

 

Most people would agree that murdering your friend was a violation and that the perpetrator should be violated in return. What is difficult for me to reconcile is that the murderer in that scenario likely saw his act as justice, possibly to the same degree. More people would agree with the revenge for the friend, but without a universal value system, both events can be internally experienced as the same event.

If everything is approached on the same playing field - one in which the personal dominance of imposing self on others is the only rule, then the way to balance the situation is to dominate the person who violated you by internalizing and acting out even more of the violating traits. In that case both are submitting to the process, but only change in terms of dominance in relationship to each other.

My position is not to submit to the other within the dynamic of dominance, but to reject the process by extending awareness outside of ego/self and not functioning on that playing field. The analogy of the spread of a virus (and killing one virus with another) or building immunity through a different process maps pretty well to the point I am trying to make.

What would happen if mercy is offered without enough knowledge? I realize continued harm can occur, but complete knowledge is not typically an option. In some ways mercy is a way to withhold action until knowledge accumulates. Acting on justice first and then gaining knowledge that would have resulted in mercy is tougher to reconcile than acting in mercy first, gaining knowledge that leads to executing justice. What is the pitfall of acting in mercy first?

 

This is helpful and addresses the concepts occurring at the level of society rather than the individual. When you say mercy considers who the offender is, does that apply to that individual's position in society or to additional information about how the actions came into being, or both? If the system of justice does not accommodate that additional information, then it will rely on the individuals to implement it rather than the system. Is it the system or the nature of mercy itself that requires individual consideration? My inclination is to think that mercy requires individual consideration only for the purpose of seeing how it aligns in a more nuanced way with a particular set of values (which is still a form of judgment). Mercy can also be conceived of from a completely external vantage point that does not place a particular event in relationship with a larger system of values.

My reading of your post is that when an external system is created based on consensus to decide upon and implement justice and mercy, then when information falls outside that system, it relies on the values of fewer individuals which tends to be more subjective. This does not necessarily address the nature of the concepts of justice and mercy, but that either concept becomes more subjective when its implementation falls outside that preconceived system.

edit: There are a number of sub-topics here including whether it is discussed at the individual or societal level, or theory vs. implementation. Also, exploring the opposite concept to Justice as Mercy based on love rather than hate or non-judgment rather than judgment. Those two layers are potentially quite entangled.

 

I'll have to think about mercy being leniency at the societal level because that could be the case. It depends also on its relationship to shared values.

I am not seeing justice as inherently existing at the societal level when there are examples of mob rule, genocide, and tyranny that are common when shared values come together in a society. Whatever occurs at the societal level has more force behind it. It is also reasonable to consider that an individual can implement justice (for example quit a job where they are being exploited) without any sense of revenge involved. Societies require shared values in order to function and so justice as the implementation of values does function naturally at the societal level. I don't see this as implying it has a higher level of objectivity than mercy, but that it relies on shared values rather than shared emotions when implemented.

One thing I should address though, the term mercy does imply a personal and emotional response, and I am using it primarily to mean non-judgment and withholding punishment, so I might need to find a different term or at least clarify that my focus is on certain aspects of the term in relationship to justice.

Correcting a situation and punishing a person can be different things. For example, a society focused on punishment will take longer identifying illnesses that produced the harm and can be treated which solves a bigger issue than the case at hand.

 

I've been thinking about the portion placed in bold here, and it comes down to a matter of personal perception again. If an individual's own values are aligned with the original law, then mercy in relation to that law is seen as leniency. If the individual's values are not aligned with that law, relaxing it will be perceived as freedom. In this way permissiveness in applying a particular law is often just a step towards abolishing it when the consensus of a society no longer supports it.

To give a neutral example: There is strongly enforced speed limit of 45 mph on a stretch of road. The police closely monitor and enforce this law punishing and ticketing those who drive faster. Then this enforcement is relaxed, the police quit monitoring. Those who value the slower speed will see this as leniency, and those who think it makes sense to drive faster will see it as increased freedom. In a way the increased leniency/freedom is less invested in personal intention because it no longer imposes one set of values on another. No one is being pressured to go either 45 or 75, and the absence of punishment implies either speed is equivalent. Freedom produces less personal intention. Insert any topic in which modern societies have conflicting values that are strongly represented: abortion, gay rights, marijuana use, etc., and it is clear that the same "mercy" in applying a particular law is both leniency and freedom depending on personal values. This also demonstrates that justice merely represents consensus which also changes over time. Judgment and punishment is by its nature derived from personal perception and is more vulnerable to internal distortions than mercy.