|
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.
|