Justice with Mercy and the Importance of Justice in Leadership - Essay Example

? Justice with Mercy Justice and mercy are two virtuous qualities every leader should embrace, but when considered they raise the question: Are Justice and Mercy compatible or a contradiction? If one is objectively institutes justice it seems that one cannot show mercy, yet if one shows mercy, justice is not upheld in its purest form. Giving way to mercy in lieu of justice can show weakness in leadership and a lack of consistency in judgment. If one is to maintain a just command they must deliver mercy in a consistent and just way. The importance of justice in leadership is evident in its place at the top of the list of our service’s leadership traits and principles. As defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary Justice is “the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or assigning the merited rewards or punishments” (Duff and Garland 44). Justly assigning the rewards and punishments associated with an action/infraction are particularly important to a Naval Officer. An officer must impartially distinguish the facts in a non-judicial punishment (NJP) case and issue punishment in a fair, impartial, practical and effective manner. Merriam-Webster also defines justice as “the quality of being just, impartial, or fair” (Duff and Garland 44). While being impartial will usually be the simple part to a NJP case the issue of being just or fair leaves some ambiguity. From the point of view of Plato, justice is one of the four main cardinal virtues that need to be upheld by all humans (Mill 35). Plato’s student contends that virtuous behavior needs to be at the center stage of human behavior. In his review, this state of fairness is the basement upon which moral maturity is anchored. Just like Aristotle, Plato contends that fairness principle is central to the execution of justice. In this regard, individuals need to be entitled and to get exactly what is due to them. According anything more than whatever they deserve implies that justice in this regard is excessive (Konow 1188). Conversely, according them less of whatever they deserve implies that justice is deficient. Although it could be very difficult to determine and measure the exact amount of what people deserve, the perfect justice principle offers useful insights that can be used to attain this. At this point, it is certain that justice is a virtuous principle that greatly promotes fairness. In particular, it ensures that good persons within the society are rewarded while those who pursue evil deeds are punished accordingly. To a great extent, this enhances harmonic living as a balance is maintained between the societal good and evil. In this respect, individuals inhabiting such a society appreciate the importance of the virtue and employ it in restoration and maintenance of social order. Undoubtedly, a society that lacks justice is likely to be characterized by a high degree of disorganization. Examining the Socratic principles we find that justice is entrenched in various ethical principles. In light of utilitarianism for instance, ends must justify the means. In a game of chess, if a parent violates the rules of chess in order to teach the child how to play the games we find that the ends justify the means. Though a trivial example the same application of righteousness of action can be expanded and applied to a larger context. According to Rawls utilitarian moral ethics state that the best action or avoidance of action is determined by the usefulness of the implementation of an action or inaction (Rawls 42). In short, the morally right act or avoidance of an act is grounded based on the outcome of the action or avoidance of action” (Mill 52). Utilitarians believe that punishment is allowed if it brings greater happiness to the greater number of persons in society. In his research, Rawls emphasizes that punishment is justifiable if it effectively promotes societal interests, otherwise it should be disallowed (Rawls 56). In essence, justice seeks to enhance the good and discourage evil. It encourages a desirable state of satisfaction and ensures that all factions of the society benefit optimally from the resources that the society offers. Besides justice, mercy is a virtue that is also promoted within the society. In most instances, this influences judgment and decision making at different levels. It is characterized by positive emotions. It is widely agreed that this virtue is instrumental in societal functioning in different ways. According to Duff and Garland, a society that is devoid of mercy is not only restrictive but also stifling (Duff and Garland 23). Scholarly research has indicated that mercy in some instances compromises the practice of absolute or perfect justice. This is further compounded by the recognition that mercy tends to have a pathological effect on the affected individuals. It is an all encompassing yet distinctive concept that is subjective in nature. Unlike justice that matches persons with their deeds, mercy is compromising barely reflects the actual deeds that are performed by an individual. In his research, Singer contends that mercy is not as objective as justice (Singer 43). Thus if a convicted offender appeals for mercy, he is implying that he be accorded a punishment whose intensity does not reflect the wrong deeds that he engages in. Likewise, a Christian who asks God to pardon him or her wants to be accorded an unjust punishment for the sins s/he has committed. This perception maintains that while making judgment a high degree of objectivity needs to be upheld. This goes a long way in ensuring that justice is upheld at all times. Individuals would always get what they actually deserve as opposed to being pardoned for their wrong deeds. From this point of view, it can be argued that a society that fully embraces mercy is unlikely to pursue justice. For this reason, it is vitally important to maintain a balance between justice and mercy. Notably, both justice and mercy are vital in enhancing effective functioning of the society. Previously, it has been argued that mercy conflicts with justice and should therefore not be employed by individuals that wish to pursue the same. However, it is worth acknowledging that mercy is not the opposite of justice and can therefore not entirely eliminate it from the society. From the point of view of Aristotle, singer posits that mercy lies between the extremes of uncaring and cruelty. Justice on the other hand lies on the continuum between softness and cruelty. The fact that merciful principles contrast sharply with their just counterparts cannot be disputed. In wrongful situations, constant use of mercy compromises just decision making. In this case, mercy should not always be employed during critical decision making. Mercy and justice are both virtuous principles that need to be explored to enhance harmonic living. While justice should be applied in all scenarios, mercy should be applied sparingly. As indicated earlier, its application to all scenarios compromises the attainment of justice. This can be well exemplified in effecting judgment. According to Konow, frequent pardoning of crimes promotes criminal activity (Konow 33). From a psychological point of view, this tells the criminals that they can get away with their offences without having to pay a proper price for them. This trend is likely to trigger social unrest as populations tend to oppose it. Historical evidence indicates that perceived unfairness has been the root of revolutions since ancient times. This social unrest culminates in a state of disorganization that compromises societal growth and development. An ideal application of both the principle of justice and mercy enable the society to develop trust in the authorities. In this regard, it is worth appreciating that the authorities are charged with the sole responsibility of making critical decisions regarding the overall wellbeing of the society. In most cases, they make judgments whose implications have lasting effects on the societal welfare. For this reason, it is imperatively important to ensure that respective decisions are based on informed and objective thought. Besides trusting the authorities, justice enhances trust amongst populations and culminates in social stability. At this point, it cannot be disputed that justice is of paramount importance to societal functioning. Nonetheless, the role of mercy should equally not be understated. According to Rawls, its importance to the self is critical (Rawls, 36). Put differently, it is a virtue that has significant benefits to oneself as opposed to the public. In this respect, Duff and Garland assert that “we all need mercy ourselves” (Duff and Garland 71). This is particularly vital in religious practices and beliefs. The wrong deeds that one engages in make them guilty and directly affect their psychological health and general wellbeing. In particular, sins impose moral burdens to an individual that can only be relieved through repentance and forgiveness. Through this, an individual is able to be given a second chance in life. They have an opportunity to learn from previous mistakes and change accordingly. Most importantly, they are able to improve their quality of life upon assumption of acceptable social behavior. To a great extent, this is instrumental in curbing social deviance. From a religious point of view, humans are weak and therefore liable to sinning. The influence of the higher power in their lives is equally very important. Failure to forgive one his or her sins compromises his or her quality of life. This is because of the fact that they make the individual guilty, stressed and in some instances depressed. This psychological status prevents the individual from exploring available opportunities optimally. In essence, it limits the individual and counters the initial utilitarian goal pertaining to enhancing social performance. Thus besides complementing justice, it is greatly rewarding to the self. At this point, it is certain that both mercy and justice play an integral role in enhancing effective social performance. The two virtues promote social ideals that enhance peaceful co existence. With these, populations are able to resolve emergent conflicts and maintain social order. This is fundamental in attainment of social as well as economic goals and objectives. However, strict justice can have detrimental implications on societal functioning. This is because it culminates in intense restriction that undermines the working environment. Likewise, excessive use of mercy compromises the quality of decisions that are made in different scenarios. Nonetheless, the two values and virtues complement each other in enhancing optimal social outcomes. Both are important and should not be discouraged amongst populations. This implies that mercy and justice need to be used in moderation to ensure optimal outcomes. In this regard, populations need to be empowered with the basic knowledge that they require for creative and critical thinking. This would enable them to make timely decisions with regard to when to be merciful as well as when to maintain justice. This knowledge is vital because it empowers them to navigate through dangers and problems that are posed by application of relative extremes. The importance of both virtues can be exemplified through the following case study. Supposing an individual commits murder unknowingly, justice demands that the person be killed too. In instances where the offender is economically productive, his or her dependants would suffer significantly. The total losses that the society would suffer would comparatively be more than if the respective individual was not killed. For example, the economic sphere would suffer the loss of labor from two individuals as opposed to one. Mercy on the other hand supposes that since the act was not intentional, the offence be reduced to manslaughter and the person to serve a jail term. Having been given a second chance, this individual would be ready to exercise caution in future. As s/he undergoes correction, s/he would contribute to economic growth of the nation. Further, dependants would not have to suffer any psychological effects. From this point of view, it is certain that mercy and justice can be pursued at the same time. Thus decisions that are merciful can also be just. Works Cited Duff Anthony and Garland David. A reader on punishment. Oxford: University Press, 1994. Print. Konow, James. Which is the fairest one of all? A positive analysis of justice theories. Journal of Economic Literature, 41.4 (2003): 1188. Print. Mill John. Utilitarianism in and on liberty and other essays. Oxford: University Press, 1991. Print. Rawls, John. A theory of justice. Oxford: University Press, 1999. Print. Singer Peter. A companion to ethics. Oxford: Blackwell,1994. Print. Read More