Abstract

Many accounts of mercy nowadays are morally neutral; agents show mercy when they impose less harm than they might have, whether or not such harm would have been permissible. More morally infused perspectives are often dismissed; for they seem too narrow to capture the full gamut of ordinary usage. This article develops a case for such a perspective, one which construes mercy as the forswearing of harm that one has the right to impose. This view is best placed to accommodate what are commonly taken to be core properties of mercy, most notably, its praiseworthy and elective character. Moreover everyday language is far from ruling it out. Indeed, many aspects of common usage favor it over its morally neutral counterparts. An additional feature of this approach is that it sharpens the commonly accepted contrast between private and public mercy.