EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum
Views:
1629

Resolved: When it is not clear which of multiple options is the most morally correct, mercy ought to be valued over justice.

(PRO)
WINNER!
0 points
(CON)
0 points
Ab_MAb_M (PRO)
Ever since mankind came to the conclusion that social standards were a good idea, we've been debating about exactly how those standards should be enforced. Today, I intend to prove to you that in the gray area, when the right choice is not clear, we should default to mercy, rather than to justice. 

Definitions:
Morally correct: conforming to a standard of right behavior

Arguments:
1. Defaulting to justice is dangerous. We live in a world that is full of mercy. We see it every day! Imagine if, whenever someone wasn't sure whether a person deserved mercy, they simply gave them what they legalistically deserved. The world would be chaos!

Take, as an example of this principal, the story of Erik Fitsgerald and Matt Swatzell. Matt Swatzell was a man who served the community through his job as a fireman. He'd never done drugs, and he wasn't a convict; he was a good man who should have lead an innocent, happy life. However, on a drive home after a 24 hour shift and 30 minutes of sleep, he fell asleep at the wheel. He caused an accident, killing a woman named June Fitsgerald and her unborn baby. Her husband Erik Fitsgerald grieved his wife and baby for a long time, but instead of seeking revenge or compensation, he took every step he could to lessen Matt's sentence. Because of Erik's actions, Matt's only punishment for involuntary manslaughter ended up being fines and community service, and he served no prison time. But Erik didn't stop there. He then reached out to Matt and began to meet with him for coffee, and the two fostered a friendship that was strong enough to later pull Matt out of guilt and pull Erik out of grief. A few years later, Matt married and had a child, which was the same good fortune that he had denied to Erik. His fear over this new development, that someone would do to his child what he'd done to Erik's child, drove him to anxiety and depression. But with the help of his friendship with Erik, he was able to overcome this fear, and now lives a happy life with his wife and two children.

In this situation, the morally correct decision was not clear. Although pressing charges to achieve justice did not have the potential to benefit anyone, defaulting to mercy would leave highly expensive negligence unpunished. In a morally ambiguous situation, Erik correctly judged that suffering for no reason was a worse price to pay than an unpunished crime. “I didn’t see why this accident and tragedy needed to ruin any more lives,” he said. If he had pressed charges in pursuit of justice, Matt would have spent at least a year in jail. And what would this have accomplished? Matt regretted his carelessness from the second he stepped out of the car; jail would not have been a rehabilitation experience for him.  He would have continued to foster guilt over the accident, beaten himself up over it, and probably developed symptoms of anxiety and depression. He would have reentered society a year later with decreased emotional stability, and his prison time would have served no purpose.

 Defaulting to justice would have accomplished little, if any, benefit. However, because Erik defaulted to mercy, Matt was able to move on and build a life for himself, and Erik found a friend who could help him through his grief.

2. Mercy is most often morally correct. The resolution establishes that we are facing an unclear choice. In other words, there is disagreement over whether mercy or justice is morally correct. However, more often than not, a merciful choice will also end up being the morally correct choice. Mercy taken above justice when it shouldn't be is just extreme kindness. Justice above mercy when it shouldn't be, however, can lead to people experiencing unnecessary and unhelpful legal consequences. Mercy is a safer default than justice, which leads to my concluding point:

3. If a decision is unclear, the default should be the answer which is most often correct. This just makes logical sense, right? We don't know which one is correct, but we do know that typically, mercy is correct. Thus, it makes much more sense to default to mercy than it does to default to justice.

Return To Top | Posted:
2016-04-15 23:19:16
| Speak Round


View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

There are no judgements yet on this debate.

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 3 rounds
  • No length restrictions
  • No reply speeches
  • Uses cross-examination
  • Community Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds means forfeiting the debate
  • Images allowed
  • HTML formatting allowed
  • Rated debate
  • Time to post: 1 week
  • Time to vote: 2 weeks
  • Time to prepare: None
  • Time for cross-examination: 3 days
If Pro cannot prove that the resolution is true, then Con wins. By accepting the debate, you accept these definitions: Mercy: The neglect of a punishment deserved, or the affording of a benefit not deserved Justice: The strict distribution of punishments and benefits as deserved