![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
via http://ift.tt/2dz8dYJ:
hamelin-born:
After reading a bunch of stories featuring mercy, practicality, and ruthlessness in equal measure, I have to wonder.
At once point in time is it morally correct to eschew mercy - the hope that people can be BETTER - in favor of cold-blooded practicality? (Removing a threat before it has the chance to grow into something serious). I’ve seen people arguing both for and against this in various works.
My stance: Mercy without justice is unmerciful, justice without mercy is unjust.
When the aggressors are a threat that cannot be contained, mercy needs to mean protecting the immediate victims. That’s my hard line. Everything else can be taken on a case-by-case basis.
hamelin-born:
After reading a bunch of stories featuring mercy, practicality, and ruthlessness in equal measure, I have to wonder.
At once point in time is it morally correct to eschew mercy - the hope that people can be BETTER - in favor of cold-blooded practicality? (Removing a threat before it has the chance to grow into something serious). I’ve seen people arguing both for and against this in various works.
My stance: Mercy without justice is unmerciful, justice without mercy is unjust.
When the aggressors are a threat that cannot be contained, mercy needs to mean protecting the immediate victims. That’s my hard line. Everything else can be taken on a case-by-case basis.
