Mercy

@xris,

xris;111222 wrote:

Ive tried to define the idea of mercy and its place in history. Mercy it appears has a wide concept for many. My interest lies in the idea that mercy be shown to those who have harmed or tried to harm you or yours. The vanquished enemy, when you stand sword in hand over your disarmed enemy. This concept of mercy has very little or no reference in history or philosophy. I wondered looking at history when it became a recognised idea , this notion of showing mercy to your enemy. I could not find it.

I thought it might be easy to find this concept , may be I'm looking in the wrong places. Maybe others could help.

1 a : compassion or forbearance shown especially to an offender or to one subject to one's power; also : lenient or compassionate treatment.

Is there something you find wrong with the above definition from Merriam-Webster? It seems right to me.

@xris,

xris;111222 wrote:

Ive tried to define the idea of mercy and its place in history. Mercy it appears has a wide concept for many. My interest lies in the idea that mercy be shown to those who have harmed or tried to harm you or yours. The vanquished enemy, when you stand sword in hand over your disarmed enemy. This concept of mercy has very little or no reference in history or philosophy. I wondered looking at history when it became a recognised idea , this notion of showing mercy to your enemy. I could not find it.

I thought it might be easy to find this concept , may be I'm looking in the wrong places. Maybe others could help.

there is at least one incident that i am aware of in the history of the Prophet Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) at that very moment when he stood with his sword raised and ready to strike an enemy who had fallen in battle, the man spit in his face. Muhammad lowered his sword and did not kill the man, but took him prisoner. the man asked why did he not kill him, and Muhammad said because he would not allow himself to kill anyone in a fit of anger.

i hope you think that qualifies as an act of mercy. i think in relation to that period of history it would be.

but i dont believe that it is a recognized idea in the modern world to show mercy to someone who has wished death upon you or tried to kill you or has actually harmed someone close to you.

to me, mercy means forgiving someone who has harmed you when you are legally, socially, spiritually, in every way allowed the right of retribution, but you choose to forgive instead. there are also records of this in shariah law and muslims will do this and are given this as an option-i believe i read an account of a man whose son had been killed by someone and he chose to forgive the killer, but i am sorry to say i dont know if i could find it for you. but if i saw one, there are most likely others and they can be found.

in fact i seem to recall the case of a christian family in america doing the same thing, maybe you heard about it?

and now that i think of it, there is a group of families who lost members in the fall of the World Trade towers who have banded together to stop the war in iraq.

@salima,

salima;111244 wrote:

there is at least one incident that i am aware of in the history of the Prophet Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) at that very moment when he stood with his sword raised and ready to strike an enemy who had fallen in battle, the man spit in his face. Muhammad lowered his sword and did not kill the man, but took him prisoner. the man asked why did he not kill him, and Muhammad said because he would not allow himself to kill anyone in a fit of anger.

i hope you think that qualifies as an act of mercy. i think in relation to that period of history it would be.

.

Does it? Muhammed's motive was not compassion nor pity. His motive was what you reported. He did not think it right to kill anyone in a fit of anger. So, that does not seem to me an act of mercy. It is the motive that counts. Not the action.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;111247 wrote:

Does it? Muhammed's motive was not compassion nor pity. His motive was what you reported. He did not think it right to kill anyone in a fit of anger. So, that does not seem to me an act of mercy. It is the motive that counts. Not the action.

i couldnt say whether or not he felt compassion at the time, but mercy is not an emotion, it is a decision. do you define an act of mercy by its motives?

@salima,

salima;111248 wrote:

i couldnt say whether or not he felt compassion at the time, but mercy is not an emotion, it is a decision. do you define an act of mercy by its motives?

Yes, I do. It is an act of forbearance (as the dictionary says) because the person who forbears has compassion, or pities, the possible victim. The decision to forbear is made for a particular kind of motive. Muhammud's motive seemed to be a principle of morality. Not pity or compassion for the person. Mercy seems to be a motive, not an emotion. Although, of course, motives are often attended by emotions.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;111257 wrote:

Yes, I do. It is an act of forbearance (as the dictionary says) because the person who forbears has compassion, or pities, the possible victim. The decision to forbear is made for a particular kind of motive. Muhammud's motive seemed to be a principle of morality. Not pity or compassion for the person. Mercy seems to be a motive, not an emotion. Although, of course, motives are often attended by emotions.

might it be a principle of morality to show mercy whether you feel compassion or not? not sure i said that right. i mean, suppose one knows it is a better thing to do, to take the high road, showing mercy because ultimately it will lead to peace, but one feels no compassion for the person on whom one is going to award amnesty or any penalty less than the maximum?

there is mercy in law, in jurisprudence also i believe. for instance the pardon by a governor for a man who has been given the death penalty. why would it be necessary for the judge to feel compassion?

now that i think of it, arent there issues where governments exchange prisoners...you might not want to call that mercy because it is a tradeoff, but to me it is still being merciful even if your motives are to obtain mercy for someone else.

why do we always get into these interesting conversations when i am already past my bedtime? then i cant sleep because i keep thinking about the subject of the thread...

@salima,

salima;111269 wrote:

might it be a principle of morality to show mercy whether you feel compassion or not? not sure i said that right. i mean, suppose one knows it is a better thing to do, to take the high road, showing mercy because ultimately it will lead to peace, but one feels no compassion for the person on whom one is going to award amnesty or any penalty less than the maximum?

there is mercy in law, in jurisprudence also i believe. for instance the pardon by a governor for a man who has been given the death penalty. why would it be necessary for the judge to feel compassion?

now that i think of it, arent there issues where governments exchange prisoners...you might not want to call that mercy because it is a tradeoff, but to me it is still being merciful even if your motives are to obtain mercy for someone else.

why do we always get into these interesting conversations when i am already past my bedtime? then i cant sleep because i keep thinking about the subject of the thread...

I suppose that a person might have a moral principle to show mercy. But I wonder whether if a person acted on that principle he would be showing mercy. He would be forbearing because he thought he ought to forbear, but not out of pity or compassion. It doesn't seem to me that acting out a a moral principle to show mercy is really showing mercy.

I hope I answered quickly enough for you to get to sleep.

@xris,

and in time to get these definitions from merriam webster online:

Main Entry:
Pronunciation: \fȯr-ˈber-ən(t)s, fər-\
Function: noun
Date: 1576
1 : a refraining from the enforcement of something (as a debt, right, or obligation) that is due
2 : the act of forbearing : patience
3 : the quality of being forbearing : leniency

mercy
Main Entry:
Pronunciation: \ˈmər-sē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural mercies
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French merci, from Medieval Latin merced-, merces, from Latin, price paid, wages, from merc-, merx merchandise
Date: 13th century
1 a : compassion or forbearance shown especially to an offender or to one subject to one's power; also : lenient or compassionate treatment <begged for mercy> b : imprisonment rather than death imposed as penalty for first-degree murder

compassion
Main Entry:
Pronunciation: \kəm-ˈpa-shən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French or Late Latin; Anglo-French, from Late Latin compassion-, compassio, from compati to sympathize, from Latin com- + pati to bear, suffer -
Date: 14th century
: sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a desire to alleviate it

i think it could happen that a person would feel compassion and pity for someone (like the judge) but not choose to show any mercy in awarding a sentence of the maximum. likewise i think a person could show mercy as a means of moral principle while sincerely wanting to murder the person, in other words without feeling compassion.

@salima,

salima;111277 wrote:

i think it could happen that a person would feel compassion and pity for someone (like the judge) but not choose to show any mercy in awarding a sentence of the maximum. likewise i think a person could show mercy as a means of moral principle while sincerely wanting to murder the person, in other words without feeling compassion.

Yes. I agree. I did not say that whenever you feel compassion of pity, you will forbear. Nor, the converse. I said (I think) that unless your motive is that of pity or compassion, your forbearance will not be an act of mercy. When you show mercy, you don't harm because you are motivated by compassion or pity.

Sweet dreams.

@salima,

Just as thought its not that easy to determine mercy. I appreciate the prophet denied his anger and showed mercy at that moment but what did imprisonment hold for this soldier , who was an enemy of the prophet. What constitutes mercy? is it compassion , control of our need to avenge?

Did he kill others in battle at the mercy of his sword?

Crusaders, killed every one that opposed them and even those that held no threat to them. Did one of them ever show mercy and why just the once. Is mercy an act of emotion that only acts by emotion rather than moral attitude. Its harder to kill a wolf cub than its snarling father. We must face mercy as a purposeful act , thoughtfully considered. Now where does that first show its philosophical intention in history? When do we hear it mentioned by the valued philosophers?

@xris,

xris;111222 wrote:

Ive tried to define the idea of mercy and its place in history. Mercy it appears has a wide concept for many. My interest lies in the idea that mercy be shown to those who have harmed or tried to harm you or yours. The vanquished enemy, when you stand sword in hand over your disarmed enemy. This concept of mercy has very little or no reference in history or philosophy. I wondered looking at history when it became a recognised idea , this notion of showing mercy to your enemy. I could not find it.

I thought it might be easy to find this concept , may be I'm looking in the wrong places. Maybe others could help.

In terms of the vanquished enemy, Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) showed mercy to his enemies when he conquered Mecca. Those times would have called for all the leaders of the enemy to be executed and the wealth of the army seized. But he did neither. He allowed them to remain in the city and no harm came to them.

Salladin did not slaughter the inhabitants of Jerusalem after he defeated the Christian crusaders, which would have been considered justice considering the Christians had slaughtered everyone there when they had conquered it. Those who wished to stay were allowed and those who wished to leave were escorted to the port.

I'm sure you could find many other examples of mercy. I think for there to be mercy, there must be a clear definition of justice. I believe all societies consider justice more important than mercy. A society which practices too much mercy will find criminals becoming braver and hurting peaceful law-abiding people. I imagine this is why it is a rarity.

@josh0335,

Josh if the notion was carried through with all conquests within the terms of the Islamic conquests, ide totally agree. It was an option that was used on occasions. Saladin would kill the foot soldiers but keep the nights for ransom, so i don't think it was an ethical decision he made. Jews where massacred at certain times in occupied countries by muslims, without the thought of mercy. I'm not saying the Muslims where any worse, on occasions they did act more humanly.

We dont see the idea of mercy as a concept, acceptable within the frame work of modern warfare till the 19c. Massacres appear to be the accepted idea for most of the 18c. The idea of mercy as an accepted ethical choice is really quite modern. You boiled traitors, stoned adulterers,hung a man for theft. We still have regions where it is not the norm to act mercifully and even now we don't really understand the concept of unconditional mercy.

@xris,

xris;111481 wrote:

Josh if the notion was carried through with all conquests within the terms of the Islamic conquests, ide totally agree. It was an option that was used on occasions.

You cannot be merciful all the time in all occasions. If you gathered an army and told your soldiers that if victorious they will be allowed to seize the assets of the enemy, but then decided to be merciful to your vanquished enemy and allow them to keep their wealth, you do injustice to your soldiers.

Quote:

Saladin would kill the foot soldiers but keep the nights for ransom, so i don't think it was an ethical decision he made.

But he left the residents of Jerusalem in peace. Was this not ethical, considering the actions of the crusaders who had taken the city before him? This was an act of mercy.

Quote:

Jews where massacred at certain times in occupied countries by muslims, without the thought of mercy.

When?

Quote:

We dont see the idea of mercy as a concept, acceptable within the frame work of modern warfare till the 19c. Massacres appear to be the accepted idea for most of the 18c. The idea of mercy as an accepted ethical choice is really quite modern. You boiled traitors, stoned adulterers,hung a man for theft. We still have regions where it is not the norm to act mercifully and even now we don't really understand the concept of unconditional mercy.

Muslim conquests during the time of the Prophet were not characterized by massacres. Not of civilians anyway. Are there fewer massacres in modern warfare than in the 18c? A single bomb can kill thousands of people, so where's the mercy?

What regions did you have in mind where you believe acting mercifully is the norm?

@xris,

xris, here is something I found-the search really panned out, I got a lot of sites on ethics to save. if you want to read the whole thing: Mercy vs. Justice: A Clash of Virtues | What do we do when virtues conflict?
dont be misled by the url, it is really about the conflict between justice and mercy. here is an excerpt which shows that though the practice may not have been known, the concept was not unknown among philosophers:

"For both Plato and Aristotle, the Golden mean of justice could be located in the concept of fairness. Justice, as fairness, means that people get exactly what they deserve - no more, no less. If they get more, something is excessive; if they get less, something is deficient. It might be profoundly difficult to figure out exactly what it is that a person *does deserve, but in principle perfect justice is about perfectly matching people and actions to their desserts.

It isn't difficult to see why justice would be a virtue. A society where bad people get more and better than they deserve while good people get less and worse than they deserve is one which is corrupt, inefficient, and ripe for revolution. It is, in fact, the basic premise of all revolutionaries that society is unjust and needs to be reformed at a basic level. Perfect justice would thus appear to be a virtue not only because it is fair, but also because it results in a more peaceful and harmonious society overall.

At the same time, mercy is often regarded as an important virtue - a society where no one ever showed or experienced mercy would be one which is stifling, restrictive, and would appear to be lacking in the basic principle of kindness. That is odd, however, because mercy essentially requires that justice *not be done. One needs to understand here that mercy isn't a matter of being kind or nice, although such qualities may lead one to be more likely to show mercy. Mercy also isn't the same thing as sympathy or pity.

What mercy entails is that something *less than justice be done. If a convicted criminal asks for mercy, he is asking that he receive a punishment that is less than what he is really due. When a Christian begs God for mercy, she is asking that God punish her less than what God is justified in doing. In a society where mercy reigns, doesn't that require that justice be abandoned?

Perhaps not, because justice also isn't the opposite of mercy: if we adopt the premises of virtue ethics as described by Aristotle, we would conclude that mercy lies between the vices of cruelty and and uncaring, while justice lies between the vices of cruelty and softness. So, both are contrasted with the vice of cruelty, but still they aren't the same, and are in fact often at odds with one another."

@salima,

Where there's mercy there's two wills: one to act according to judgement, and another to forbear.

I think Mercy is a primal part of us. It's what makes it hard to do harm. Maybe it's related to empathy.

@Arjuna,

Sorry I cant reply im of to France..but will answer on my return.thanks xris

@xris,

Just a quick thought, Is it not charity? Charity being a love, is it not love or at least the recognition that some other has the capasity so deserves the respest that mercy (true mercy) breeds but comes from a charitable position, comes form a loving place?

@sometime sun,

Im not going to get involved in particular in depth debates on certain faiths because it can lead to certain misunderstandings.

Mercy as a concept becomes more visible as the centuries pass. I don't think its acting without concern to justice. True justice gives a certain understanding to circumstance and motives. Before we had mercy incorporated into the justice system , stealing a loaf of bread because you were hungry did not have any influence. You had just stolen a loaf and deserved to be punished. Its a matter of empathy as the last post commented on.

@xris,

xris;112043 wrote:

Im not going to get involved in particular in depth debates on certain faiths because it can lead to certain misunderstandings.

Mercy as a concept becomes more visible as the centuries pass. I don't think its acting without concern to justice. True justice gives a certain understanding to circumstance and motives. Before we had mercy incorporated into the justice system , stealing a loaf of bread because you were hungry did not have any influence. You had just stolen a loaf and deserved to be punished. Its a matter of empathy as the last post commented on.

Are you referring to a particular country or people? If anything, there is less mercy now than before. There are more wars and more civilians being killed than in previous centuries. People are starving not because of lack of resources but man-made restrictions. So where is mercy more visible than before?

Philosophy Forum

Mercy

Quick Links

My Account

able2know