Perfect Justice and Perfect Mercy are Incompatible

Great Debates
21

“Perfect” justice would entail restitution and repair. Since these are impossible for mankind – how do you give someone back their lost eyesight, for instance? – we fall back to complex formulae involving compensation for loss.

If God existed, and was interested in Justice, he could dispense it easily. Everyone who has been harmed by another would immediately enjoy full restitution. Mercy would be unnecessary; there would be no threat of any sort against which an appeal to mercy would be uttered.

The fact that people do go around with their eyes put out simply demonstrates that God isn’t issuing perfect justice in a human time-frame. If it turns out that we do all eat pie in the sky when we die, then perhaps God’s justice is “perfecter” than it seems.

(Meanwhile, I have a lovely sow I’d like to sell you… I’ve got her right here in this poke…)

Trinopus

22

How do you know God hasn’t dispensed pure and perfect Justice?

23

I object to the idea that punishment has anything to do with justice.

Marcy is something of a nonsense concept, as I see it. Either it’s right to do something or it isn’t. If not hurting someone for something is laudable, then that should be taken into consideration when deciding what to do. I think the Christian concept of “mercy” arose from the otherwise unintelligible story of deserving torture and still offering redemption: morality and what the heck god was up to had to be distinguished in some way so that there could be the maximum possible censure directed at man without seeming too nasty about it in the end, even that doesn’t make any real sense.

24

Marcy… sheesh. I meant Morcy. No wait…

25

This is mildly related to the problem of evil, in my opinion. If perfect justice is administered in the afterlife, and God doesn’t care about justice in this life, what’s with, well, anything?

26

Can anyone offer a compelling argument why “mercy” should be considered to be any compassionate activity?

Libertarian keeps insisting that’s the case. I’m fairly convinced that the definition as well as the common usage of the word prove him wrong, but I’m willing to listen to counterpoints.

Does anyone disagree with the idea that “mercy” involves setting aside some principle, and why?

27

There’s a story (I think in the Midrash on Rosh Hashanah) on this very point. I’ll do my best to retell it.

Once upon a time ™, there was a king. He owned a set of delicate crystal goblets. He said to himself, “If I fill these goblets with hot water, they will shatter; if I use cold water, they will crack.”

So what did he do? He mixed hot and cold water, and poured the mixture into the goblets.

Likewise, the world cannot survive on justice without mercy, nor mercy without justice. Strict justice and law (which, as noted, are not identical) would destroy society through excessive control; total mercy and compassion would destroy society through anarchy. So a viable society mixes justice and mercy.

What’s the proper mix? A society’s leaders get paid to figure out the answer to that very question.

28

But was it “right” to keep the goblets from breaking? (To reference your [really quite nifty] metaphor.)

If the world can’t survive perfect justice, and God chooses to preserve the world, that means that preserving the world is more important than doing what’s “right”, which seems like an odd and highly unusual idea.

I don’t know if it’s an incorrect idea – possibly it’s just that our society and religion are alien to it – but I’m not sure I can accept that as a possibility.

29

Think of it in terms of game-theory:

The fear of justice provides a deterrent to crime…

…And the hope of mercy provides an incentive for a criminal to confess, return the stolen goods, release the hostage, etc. The fact that some people get lighter sentences when they “do the right thing” is an important piece of information that we want “the bad guys” to have.

So, yes, “mercy” (or Marcy – Apos, I agree with your post, by the way: punishment, per se, is not a good thing. Punishment as a deterrent has, at least, some sense behind it) involves breaking the rules. And that can be beneficial.

Trinopus

30

Unless you’re a crystallivore, I’d think that keeping the goblets from breaking would be highly desirable. Personally, I wouldn’t drink out of a cracked / shattered goblet, and I sure wouldn’t serve guests (or ministers of state) with defective utensils.

There’s two parts to this. First, overall survival is the ultimate Good Thing. Justice and mercy, right and wrong, are all means to the end.

Second, there’s a philosophical line that I think the SF author Harlan Ellison developed: “When belief in a god dies, the god dies.” If a Deity allows all of Eir worshippers to be destroyed, E’s going to have a hard time recruiting new followers.

31

Hmm…

That would seem to put God way, way beyond concepts like Right and Wrong.

Do the ideas of Good and Evil transcend Right and Wrong? Are they equivalent? Are Right and Wrong greater?

Ooh, so many interesting ideas…

32

Now, to respond to Libertarian’s claims (as he still won’t post here):

** Um, no.

If two distinct meanings were being attributed, they would have been listed as distinct meanings. That’s not disjunction, that’s an inclusive ‘or’.

You’re also not reading the statements properly: you’re focusing on “compassionate or lenient”, not on “compassionate or lenient treatment”. Mere compassion is not enough.

The following is NOT mercy:

[Judge]: “Libertarian, I feel that you are at heart a good and worthy person, caught up in a crime committed by another, and undeserving of harsh punishment. If it were up to me, I would spare you from the penalty the law requires… but it’s not up to me. I hereby sentence you to death, and may have God have mercy on your soul.”

Y’know, mercy – as in sparing you from your justly due condition.

** So ‘goodness’ is opposed to suffering? At least you’re finally making meaningful claims about what God actually is.
quote:

** ‘Mercy’ requires sparing people from the imposition of a standard (although that’s not all it requires)… and if mercy is the highest standard, it doesn’t work. The assumption that mercy can be the highest principle is flawed. It’s rather similar to part of the Liar’s Paradox, in fact.

I’m sure you can’t imagine that anyone could actually fail to recognize your genius.

33

This entire argument is just fine, for an examination of government systems to adjudicate compliance with civil and criminal statutes. Human justice.

It’s still wrong, mind you, but it is a fine argument.

If justice fundamentally excludes mercy, then I will choose mercy, and forgo justice. It doesn’t, of course. You seem to equate perfection and precision when you discuss what perfect justice might be. Precise and invariable conformation to the law is not necessarily desirable, even in the imperfect situation that arises in human justice systems. So, we try to put people in charge of the system, whom we call judges, and whom we rely upon to administer justice in accordance with both the letter and spirit of the law. Justice with mercy.

Mercy is not just failing to execute just punishment. Mercy is the extending of kindness, and compassion to those who need it. Waving dictionaries around at people is unrelated to justice or mercy. Or good philosophy.

Now, on the only slightly related subject of the possibility that God might be able to be both just, and merciful, it seems that the argument you propose includes the same failing. You want God’s justice to conform to your perception of precision being perfection, and punishment being required for justice. These criteria are entirely personal on your part. A lot of people see the possibility of just and lawful mercy to those who were in violation of the law. And for those who insist in payment for the sins of man, the legalistic doctrine of Christianity maintains that all such debts are paid, by the Lord Himself, on behalf of those for whom he is the Savior.

See, God knew folks like you would be nit picking about legalism. So, He came up with a solution for you too.

However I feel constrained to point out that this, and all other arguments about who gets sent to Hell are just more cases of missing the entire point. Sin and punishment are not the point. Love is the point. Mercy is just one expression of love.

“Faith, hope and love, abide now these three. And the greatest of these is Love.”

Justice doesn’t even make the top three.

Feel free to continue the ontological examination of the fundamental incompatibility of Love and Law.

Tris

34

I agree with when dealing with “imperfect” law (such as human justice systems), mercy is not necessarily incompatible with “justice”, and when it is, mercy can reasonably be chosen.

But what about the rules that describe and define what justice is? Any actions that fall outside those rules (and the rules might actually be fairly broad) is by definition wrong. Mercy requires going outside the rules of the system… so mercy applied to the true laws of Justice is necessarily wrong.

35

And TVAA spoke, and Lo, God was restricted to binary logical constructs throughtout the universe.

At least with respect to TVAA, who chooses Justice over Mercy, and asks to be judged by that standard.

Me, I think I will try to forgive, and hope to be forgiven.

Tris

36

I’m sorry, but I just don’t understand.

This has nothing to do with my choices – it’s a matter of logic.

Violating lesser standards by being merciful can be just, but violating the standard that defines justice by definition cannot be just. Violating the highest standard (whatever it is) in the name of mercy is logically inconsistent, as there can’t be any principle to substitute in for it.

37

TVAA: to begin with, let me note that I agree with you; technically speaking, the two ideals are incompatible.

On the other hand, just to toy with ideas…

One famous cliche has it that justice can be “tempered” by mercy.

Perhaps that can be exemplified by a judge whose sentencing is statistically toward the lenient end of the range of sentences prescribed by law…

“Okay, for burglary, the law says you need to go to prison for from eight to twelve years: I sentence you to eight.”

Might this serve as both justice and mercy?

Trinopus

38

That does indeed work, if all of the possible responses within the sentencing range are equally just.

But the ultimate rules can’t allow multiple possibilities. (It’s the same reason electric field lines can’t cross.)

39

And that is the paradox christainity proposes to solve, Jesus taking the punishment so that justice can be served and mercy dispensed. Of course the question here seems to be is this even possible, but perhaps this is heading too much into theological debate. I seem to remember from my philosophy class Plato having an interesting theory on justice. He dismissed it being giving people their due, and I wish I could remember his logic. His conclusion seemed to be justice was doing good unto people, which might be punishment or mercy, whatever would shape them towards their possible good. Maybe the more important question to be asked is what is the purpose of justice and mercy to determine when each should be applied. I’m probably missing some fundamental logic here, or misrepresenting Plato(it’s been a while since my class), but those are my thoughts so far.