That's a privilege not a right . . . right?

Justice



1990s british news/current affairs spoof.

I just had a thought. I know something new.

Justice is the letter of the Law, Mercy is the Spirit.

You have the right to reap the fruits of your labor (i.e. earn a living), whether tangible or intellectual, under the umbrella of your right to life without someone else stealing it out from under you. You even have the right to make a good living under the umbrella of your right to the pursuit of happiness; however, you do not have a right to obscene profit (that which which would infringe on other people's inalienable rights). The exclusivity I referred to is a right to the extent that its duration does not have an unconscionable impact on the greater good.

Addendum
 

A just desert may be a just reward (as opposed to a just punishment) which constitutes more than the word "privilege" in common usage describes. If you are concerned about what is derived directly from social mores rather than the laws created to enforce those values, then you are not wrong ... semantics.

Interesting take - I was just thinking that my perception of "rights" normally don't have time limits on them - that's what got me to post what I said. After reading your response - I'm pickin' up what you are puttin' down.

There's no comparison. Someone who came up with a cure for cancer would in all justice have the right to charge a million dollars a dose. Mercy would dictate that he give the cure away for free. Common sense would dictate a path between the two. Many drug companies are doing that now. If you have the insurance or money out of pocket to pay for their high priced drugs, pay you do. If you live below the poverty line and have no insurance, your doctor can intercede for you, and you get the drug at low cost or even free. I call that the solution to the problem.

If I had to choose ALWAYS justice or ALWAYS mercy... i'm totally not sure!

For minor stuff, mercy is better. For major stuff, JUSTICE ALL THE WAY!

but like letting your kid sleep in because he forgot to set his alarm clock... Eh, people make little mistakes like that,
Giving someone leeway on the road is nice, and I do that often,
but when people drive like jackasses and crash i think *JUSTICE!*

I think justice if it effects other people, mercy if it only effects the individual.
Mercy when there's no sacrifice to the merciful I guess...

In answering the original posts question for an "always" choice, I choose mercy.
For this reason- the original proposition didn't delineate the boundaries for the application of said mercy or justice.
Therefore I can apply both justice and mercy to both the offender and the offended within the scope of mercy.

The consideration I must make is- what is most merciful to both.

I have to consider what is actually best for the offender, and meting out justice possibly can be the most merciful choice to both the offender, and the offended.
Likewise, meting out mercy from the just consequence- may be the most merciful choice for both parties in a different case.

In all cases, the choice of mercy can allow consideration for what is best for all those involved, even if the most merciful choice is justice.

Whereas, always having to mete out justice( the due consequences) will at times not be the most needed(beneficial) for either the offended or the offender. Especially in consideration of the offended party, I would want to be best meeting their needs.
When it came to my sons as we raised them, I always considered as carefully as I could what was the best for them.
And anytime I could extend grace/mercy toward them by not having them have to deal with the full consequences of their poor choice without hurting them, I did so.
Of course this requires forward thinking for them as accurately as possible, which means bringing to bear what wisdom one has.