Is Mercy Reverse Injustice or Reverse-d Injustice?

Salah

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 or the oppressed.

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

Possibility

↪Salah

If I can offer an alternative viewpoint:

Mercy positions the injustice and all of its baggage in the past. To have mercy is to see the potential in someone regardless of past behaviour, and to act according that potential instead of defining a person according to the injustice they have done (ie. ‘the abuser/oppressor’).

Mercy is acknowledging that pain, loss or humiliation has brought all of us to this point (compassion), and then resolving not to add to it in the future by evoking any perceived ‘right’ to retribution (forgiveness).

Pfhorrest

Yeah, this whole argument seems to hinge on a supposed right of retribution that one is waiving in being merciful. I'd argue instead that there is no right to retribution, only to restitution, and mercy is acknowledging that truth and not acting in contravention of it. Mercy is restraining your irrational emotional desires for retribution and recognizing that two wrongs don't make a right. You have a right to having whatever was done to you undone to the extent that that's possible, but mercy isn't waiving that, only the claim to anything beyond that.

Is Mercy Reverse Injustice or Reverse-d Injustice?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions