On Mercy

by Malcolm Bull

Is mercy more important than justice?

Since antiquity, mercy has been regarded as a virtue. The power of monarchs was legitimated by their acts of clemency, their mercy demonstrating their divine nature. Yet by the end of the eighteenth century, mercy had become “an injustice committed against society . . . a manifest vice.” Mercy was exiled from political life. How did this happen?

In this book, Malcolm Bull analyses and challenges the Enlightenment’s rejection of mercy. A society operating on principles of rational self-interest had no place for something so arbitrary and contingent, and having been excluded from Hobbes’s theory of the state and Hume’s theory of justice, mercy disappeared from the lexicon of political theory. But, Bull argues, these idealised conceptions have proved too limiting. Political realism demands recognition of the foundational role of mercy in society. If we are vulnerable to harm from others, we are in need of their mercy. By restoring the primacy of mercy over justice, we may constrain the powerful and release the agency of the powerless. And if arguments for capitalism are arguments against mercy, might the case for mercy challenge the very basis of our thinking about society and the state?

An important contribution to contemporary political philosophy from an inventive thinker, On Mercy makes a persuasive case for returning this neglected virtue to the heart of political thought.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction

208 pages, Hardcover

Published May 14, 2019

About the author

Malcolm Bull is Professor of Art and the History of Ideas at Oxford University and a Senior Associate Research Fellow of Christ Church.

Reviews

[Chris]

Malcolm Bull presents a case for mercy to be a part of societal functioning.
This essay is constructed as a long logical proof. Bull presents the arguments of past philosophers, Seneca, Hume, Rawls, Shklar, Williams, Hobbes and, of course, Machiavelli. Bull either expands or rebuts their findings given his own understanding. I found this limiting. I wondered, not being well-read in the teachings of the above philosphers myself, if he weren’t picking and choosing arguments from them to suit himself.
The discourse on how mercy and its opposite, cruelty, function in a State, mercy’s limitations, and how the consideration of mercy changed over history is valuable.
I remember a course in Logic I took in college. I did poorly, not because I can’t think (though I do have my moments), but because I have difficulty setting the statements of a logical proof apart from circumstances that may or may not surround it and influence it.
I found I have that same trouble here. If Bull talks about a “permanent” merciless state, what is “permanent”? The millions brutalized and murdered by The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany certainly qualify them as “merciless”, but, it seems that that quality also influenced how long they could endure before being overturned as abhorent. Bull accounts for situations like this but in arguments that are bloodless and dry. The presentation of human existence as a math problem or formula to be executed rather than as the unpredictable beauty and chaos it has proven itself to be time and again is what makes this difficult for me.

[Meilyr · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5 stars

[Jerry Wall · Rating 1 out of 5]

discussion of mercy in relationships with references to Neitzche, Hume, Locke, Montaigne, etc.
For Montaigne, therefore, there is a remedy at hand for cruelty: mercy. p. 31
Hobbes fifth law ---- that every man strive to accommodate himself to the rest. p. 133
. . . no mercy can be expected from the weak, because they are by definition never in a position to offer it. They are merciless in the sense that they cannot exercise mercy. p. 145

[Storm · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good, sound, very logical political philosophy; accessible. Significant because more thought and books on mercy pretty plenty necessary.

Would have liked to learn more about the political theology of mercy, especially the Trinity's and particularly Allah's. Oh well, all's cool, this book had nice neat insights nonetheless¡

[Left_coast_reads · Rating 4 out of 5]

Malcolm Bull argues that mercy is central to politics. He briefly charts the path that mercy has taken in political theory in the work of Aristotle, Cicero, Seneca, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Hume, Nietzsche, and others.

For politics to be possible, the powerful must show some degree of mercy to the powerless, otherwise we would only have war. But mercy is asymmetrical. The powerless cannot reciprocate. This expands the scope of what is considered politics, rather than war, on behalf of the oppressed. Politics on this view includes the powerless actively trying to take power, and short of outright war, they're perfectly entitled to do so. However, any attempt by the powerful to expand their power would be considered an act of war. This is an inherently unstable or cyclical politics, with the powerless constantly seeking to overturn the existing hierarchy.

This approach has interesting consequences. For one, it dissolves national borders. By changing the definition of the state to simply "those who have power over others" we can conceptualize non-citizens as political actors.This opens up the possibility that it would be within the scope of politics and not war to cross the border and try to influence political developments. This state--dispersed among many people who have some degree of power and thus have the ability to show mercy--is a sort of amorphous concept that requires further elaboration.

Non-human species and future generations would also be considered political actors since they are at the mercy of the powerful. In these cases, since they cannot represent themselves fully in our political processes, they would be entitled to virtual representation--someone who acts on their behalf.

This book speaks to some of my deepest tendencies that otherwise lack an explicit philosophical basis. I like it. I learned a lot. It covers so much in a short space that it was a challenge at some points. Overall I think it's very creative but probably needs more room to fully develop its arguments. And it's not always clear whether he's being descriptive or normative. Is this the way politics are or how they should be? Or is it just an interesting thought experiment?

[Ella Henderson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Enjoyed this thoroughly. I picked it up in a bookshop in Scotland because it looked interesting, and I ended up loving it! Definitely, in terms of writing style, one of the more challenging books I’ve read, but it was nice to try out a different way of writing. I’ve never though about mercy and how it does or doesn’t make up our society, but it is now something I think about fairly often! I recommend this, but don’t read it all in one sitting (unless you’re very experienced in this genre, which I wasn’t really when I started reading). I let myself take my time reading, which was nice because I didn’t feel forced to read. This read has also pushed me towards more Philosophy books (yay!!).

[Elisabeth · Rating 2 out of 5]

*2.5
I picked this up on a whim and so might have a different perspective than someone who purposefully went into this because they were already deep in the study of mercy.
Overall, this feels very fragmented and like bits of insights from different philosophers with a comment or two about them instead of a cohesive whole that develops its own argument. It is not the most engaging read (and I'm not just saying that because it's academic writing - I've read and been engaged in my fair share of academia) and I don't think this book will leave a lasting impression on me.

[Joseph Cloward · Rating 4 out of 5]

Often a strange little book, with a brilliant start and rockier (though provocative) finish. Well worth reading as a novel imagining of a different kind of political theory, in which mercy, and not justice, is the primary social virtue.

[Katie · Rating 2 out of 5]

um not sure i could tell anyone much but i got the gist? i think? niche and heavy theory being dabbled with.