I will refer to justice on its macro level which is applied to the entire society as “General Justice” and on its micro level which is applied individually between persons as “Special Justice”. I understand the sense of justice in human society as the ability of that society to place all of its members on comparable grounds of satisfaction. Accordingly, a perfect human society is that one which realizes that sense of justice on both of the macro and the micro scales. On one note, “Mercy” is a conception that has different perspectives through different domains, such as religious, ethical, social, political and legal.
However, I will adopt a preliminary recognition for it as the condition attained when some rule that otherwise would apply, is not applied to someone. On another note, “Gratitude” is to acknowledge some act as beyond the essentially required by the social order and return it in a reciprocation of kindness. The importance and position of Gratitude and Mercy in defining the sense of justice on its two levels would definitely differ from one philosopher to another according to their perceptions of this value. In the following paragraphs, I will try to expand on what part that Gratitude and Mercy might have in defining that sense of justice on its two scales through the overall idea of justice that I got from different philosophies studied in the course; with a special focus on Kant and Mill.
On a side note, I have chosen these very two philosophers because I was able to figure out some helpful views in their approaches to recognize connection or disconnection between “Mercy” and “Gratitude” on one side to “Justice” on another side.
127 our experts are availableright now
I would start by presenting my understanding of the role that “Gratitude” could have in defining justice. The most helpful philosophy for me in this regard would be Kant’s who adopts a deontological approach that centers duties in the heart of the human social system and sees all other values from the lens of the duties. Accordingly, gratitude for Kant can be nothing but another duty. That duty of gratitude can fit in the acts of beneficence which are being done over and above one’s essential duties. Though, it remains a duty because it originated from a sense of debt which exists in the conscience of the person who receives an act of kindness. Within Kant philosophy, I might understand gratitude as an additional duty that is recognized as an act of grateful nature.
On the micro level of justice, Kant would posit gratitude as a supporting ground for his rule, which is one should do to the others what he wants others to do to him. Gratitude acknowledgment within this rule would lead to the reciprocation of the act of gratitude which causes all individuals to support and sustain the acts of kindness. Thus, if I imagine Kant’s philosophy as an equation for getting a Utopia, then Gratitude would be in a preliminary position among the givens of this equation.
On another note, Kantian notion of self-driven limit might make it easier to understand what Gratitude means as a value. Precisely, as long as one’s own reason is the standard of defining the duties and limits that one should be obligated with, then the gratitude should be acknowledged to what is being done to that one beyond his self-defined limits and duties. In other words, if the categorical imperative for Kant is to do onto people what I want people to do onto me, then any act of decency over that would be acknowledged with gratitude.
However, it is still not clear how such a value of gratitude can be used to get a meaningful definition of justice on either macro or micro levels. For me Kant has the clearest view to understanding gratitude within the human governance, however, this understanding is incomplete and mono-sided. Although Kant’s duty-based philosophy with its self-driven limits can be helpful to know what an act of gratitude might look like from the side of the doer, it will still blurry to be understood from the side of the receiver because we do not know what kind of rights Kant wants. In other words, if we do not know what rights one should be given normally, then we will not be able to know what kind of act goes beyond these rights and acknowledged as an act of gratitude.
On another note, according to Mill, gratitude, and mercy may be posited somewhere on the equation of promoting the overall human happiness. “Mercy”, however, seems more identifiable through Mill’s views than “Gratitude”. Mercy, in its meaning as the condition when someone is exempted from the application of a rule or some consequence of an act he did, would promote the individual happiness of that exempted person. This individual happiness gets repeated by the mercy reactions from one individual to another causing the overall social happiness. Until this point Mill seems clear regarding the position of “Mercy” to his desired social outcome of happiness. However, things turn into a blurry sight when it comes to the question of harm.
According to Mill everyone is free to attain his own happiness in his own way and nothing would define the limit of that happiness but a harm being caused to other persons while attaining that happiness. Here rises the case of euthanasia and the good-evil debate around it as an unsolvable issue. The main problem with Mill here is that he leaves the whole sum to the individual reason. He does not define a specific authority or stable standard to decide what are rights, in what way can they be harmed and how to prove this unknown kind of harm; at least as far as I understand. Consequently, Mercy in regard to euthanasia will remain vague and unable neither to be understood nor to define justice.
Regardless, the basic definition of mercy presented above, it does have different perspectives in different domains when it comes to such a debate like euthanasia. Mill stops at a preliminary point in defining harm by harming peoples’ rights which are legitimate claims. In euthanasia, it gets complicated to decide which claim should be legitimate over the other; a relief of an endless pain or a life survival. More importantly, what context should be considered in answering this question? On one note, legal context would take us to investigate the lack of will on the patient’s side and the absence of authority on ending someone’s life on the doctor’s side which may lead to prohibiting it. On another note, Ethical context might overweigh the relief of pain over the legal considerations of patient’s will and doctor’s authority and, accordingly, lead to allowing or maybe pushing it forward. On a third note, religious context would take the dimension of the divine authority over human beings’ lives and block any possible reconciliation between legal and ethical domains over this case by a deceive rejection of euthanasia.
At this point, it will become impossible to define mercy and place it somewhere in connection to justice if we cannot identify a specific authority and adopt a strict context within which we can do so. The individualism of Mill, in this case, can lead to a great mess because peoples’ perceptions of the concepts of rights, harm, legitimacy are variable. Actually, no one can have a consistent approach on right and harm depending only on his own reason. The debate on euthanasia shows that a definite common standard or authority that can provide a coherent reasoning have to be adopted.
Overall, rights, duties, and social happiness are the closest three areas where we might locate conceptions of “Gratitude” and “Mercy” in defining what we mean by justice. However, these conceptions do not provide a comprehensive understanding of justice, especially under the umbrella of the liberal loose view of rights and its preference of individualism as the perfect path to the Utopia.
