A broad variety of motivations may explain an act of mercy. It is not necessary for pity to enter the picture. Instead, he or she forgives me, allows me to return the item and closes the matter, and in doing so shows mercy. He or she would be morally and legally entitled to apply justice in this way. My friend would be justified in reporting me to the police and bringing me to court. For instance, I might steal from a friend.
Rather, mercy is bestowed gratuitousy on me, independently of what I deserve. I cannot claim it as a right or an obligation. The idea is that mercy is undeserved in the sense that if I have done something wrong without valid excuse, I am not strictly entitled to mercy. I use it because it often comes into play in discussing mercy. Let's delve a little deeper.Įxcuse the word, 'supererogation'. Mercy can be motivated by pity but they belong to distinct categories in the philosophy of mind and action.
On the surface, mercy is a matter of action ('an act of mercy') while pity is an emotion. Following your pointer, I shall not bring euthanasia into the discussion. The conceptual relationship between mercy and pity is a genuine philosophical issue and it deserves investigation. In either case, the author suggests pity stops short and it's better to strive for mercy. If a personal argument, the persuasive argument may be: "I know it will hurt you to lose a loved one, so please show them mercy." If a political argument, the persuasive argument may be: "If you are opposed to euthanasia, I know this is hard for you, so it would be an act of mercy for you to grant permission."
0 kommentar(er)
