tp:
Depending on the meaning of "mercy" one can argue that if you choose not to show it to people on the basis of your judgment about their character (i.e. that they are not merciful), you are lessening your own character
Yes, that is also true! But then
you are the one who is not merciful in the first instance ... the virtue has already been corrupted; and I suppose that W.'s recommendation would be that others should deal harshly with you.
I don't remember the source. My Weisel books have sort of flown to the four winds over the years (borrowed and not returned). I believe it was a short story, and by 'unmerciful' he was referring to people who had practiced actual persecution of others. So it was not so much a character judgment as ... a legal judgment? A conscious decision to leave cruelty unpunished in the hopes that the offender would learn mercy by receiving it. Weisel crafted the story - fiction, btw! - to show that not only did the offender not learn mercy but the person refusing to render justice was corrupted themself.
One of the Eastern religions holds to this premise ... maybe Ath can tell us which one because I've forgotten ... within Buddhism, Confucianism and Taoism three different approaches to good and evil:
• deliver good for good and evil for evil, so that the evil will feel the consequences of their behavior
• deliver good for good and good for evil, so that the evil will see the alternative
• deliver good for good and justice for evil so that the evil will learn restraint
I have to confess that I favor the last formula
... but then, it also depends on the circumstances. If 'evil' has never seen 'good' and does not know what it looks like, then it might be wise to begin by showing that.
Jn