The Meaning of Pity and Mercy...what is the RIGHT thing to do? - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Kalessin · 04-21-2002, 09:21 PM

It's worth considering that both pity and mercy are the prerogative of those with some kind of power over the potential recipient. They are ethical considerations that guide one's action in a situation where one has choices.

In that context, pity is perhaps a rather unfashionable (or old-fashioned) ethic. In Tolkien's world, where races and characters are pretty clearly defined (certainly by comparison to the shades of grey we see in reality), pity is seen as virtuous - a kind of gentle, tolerant accommodating of that (or those) less fortunate.

These days, 'pity' is not something that, for example, third world or disabled charities will attempt to elicit when raising funds. Precisely because it signifies an inequality and inferiority, and is seen as patronising and disempowering. Imagine being 'pitied' by someone (anyone) and you will see what I mean. The notion of pity as a virtue is something that was typical of Tolkien's age - he was steeped in British imperial culture - and has generally been superseded by a more subtle and humanist (yet equally problematic) view.

Mercy again implies a power - this time, the power of both judgement and sentence. To be simplistic, the acceptance of mercy as a guiding principle would lead one to disapprove of the death penalty. If a killer is caught and convicted, a death sentence might be just - but not merciful. To be merciful implies exercising both judgement and power to reduce the suffering of another. It is not the same as fairness or justice. If mercy is a virtue, it is always therefore appropriate, however galling. In an advanced society, perhaps, "institutionalised mercifulness" represents the moral power (or superiority) of its citizens.

A do-or-die confrontation where life is in danger is not an occasion where either mercy or pity come into play, because of the balance of power in such situations. In Tolkien's work also, killing that takes place outside of war and self-defence is seen as brutal and barbaric, and to be avoided wherever possible.

At the risk of sounding pompous (what, moi?), I do not recommend the WWGD or WWAHD approach to ethical decisions. One, for the obvious reason that these are fictional creations (and not even human), and two, because the whole point of ethics and morality is that you must make your own decision and take responsibility for it. You can't say later "I only did that 'cuz I thought it wuz what Treebeard would do" [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

That's why real life can be difficult. In the end, it's up to you - and down to you.

Peace [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

04-21-2002, 09:21 PM	#7
Kalessin Wight Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Earthsea, or London Posts: 175	It's worth considering that both pity and mercy are the prerogative of those with some kind of power over the potential recipient. They are ethical considerations that guide one's action in a situation where one has choices. In that context, pity is perhaps a rather unfashionable (or old-fashioned) ethic. In Tolkien's world, where races and characters are pretty clearly defined (certainly by comparison to the shades of grey we see in reality), pity is seen as virtuous - a kind of gentle, tolerant accommodating of that (or those) less fortunate. These days, 'pity' is not something that, for example, third world or disabled charities will attempt to elicit when raising funds. Precisely because it signifies an inequality and inferiority, and is seen as patronising and disempowering. Imagine being 'pitied' by someone (anyone) and you will see what I mean. The notion of pity as a virtue is something that was typical of Tolkien's age - he was steeped in British imperial culture - and has generally been superseded by a more subtle and humanist (yet equally problematic) view. Mercy again implies a power - this time, the power of both judgement and sentence. To be simplistic, the acceptance of mercy as a guiding principle would lead one to disapprove of the death penalty. If a killer is caught and convicted, a death sentence might be just - but not merciful. To be merciful implies exercising both judgement and power to reduce the suffering of another. It is not the same as fairness or justice. If mercy is a virtue, it is always therefore appropriate, however galling. In an advanced society, perhaps, "institutionalised mercifulness" represents the moral power (or superiority) of its citizens. A do-or-die confrontation where life is in danger is not an occasion where either mercy or pity come into play, because of the balance of power in such situations. In Tolkien's work also, killing that takes place outside of war and self-defence is seen as brutal and barbaric, and to be avoided wherever possible. At the risk of sounding pompous (what, moi?), I do not recommend the WWGD or WWAHD approach to ethical decisions. One, for the obvious reason that these are fictional creations (and not even human), and two, because the whole point of ethics and morality is that you must make your own decision and take responsibility for it. You can't say later "I only did that 'cuz I thought it wuz what Treebeard would do" [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] That's why real life can be difficult. In the end, it's up to you - and down to you. Peace [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]