Seneca's Mercy

Today's reading from Seneca's Dialogues and Essays was On Mercy, an essay addressed to Emperor Nero. Must have been somewhat nerve-wracking, writing something to Nero, even considering Seneca's privileged position. It reminded me of the prefaces Renaissance writers put before their works. The general tone of On Mercy was a sort of blend of Aristotle and Machiavelli. Seneca extols the benefits of ruling mercifully, both intrinsic and not. He defends his position by examining virtue and necessarily how mercy, as a virtue, differs from vices such as cruelty.

Most of the essay doesn't provoke much thought on a philosophical level. The majority of the argument would be better identified as political theory, though I suppose that could be placed within the purview of philosophy. I agree that mercy is a beneficial quality in a leader, but to what extent I suppose I don't quite know. Seneca quotes an example of Emperor Augustus pardoning a young man who attempted to take the Emperor's life - I am not sure I would be so merciful. Mercy is certainly valuable insofar as the punishment must suit the crime, but it is surely difficult to guage the applicability of a punishment to different situations. Furthermore, can it be said that the degree to which mercy is valuable has changed in the past two millenia? Does the presence of social media, multiple independently-strong religions, widespread education, and the proliferation of powerful weapons change how mercy may be applied? Did the value of mercy change between when Seneca analyzed it and when Machiavelli did? If not, which of the two is correct; both have persuasive arguments.

I did agree with Seneca that mercy is surely different from pity. Pity is a vice; to pardon someone is an act of weakness. I should note that Seneca's definition of pardon, and now mine as well, is to fail to punish someone who deserves punishment. This is different from mercy, which is merely the altering of a punishment. I cede that in many cases, the merciful act and a pardon amount to the same thing. Cruelty is, in the Aristotelian tradition, the opposite extreme and thus a vice as well.

I found particularly interesting Seneca's two arguments against cruelty on the basis of signalling. For one, a large number of convicted or punished criminals allows them to see one another. If they true number of criminals was known to each of them, and they were allowed to mingle according to their own desires, then something tantamount to organized crime would result. In the same vein, a large number of criminals conveys something negative about the Emperor's ability to lead effectively. A small number of acknowledge criminals, however, indicates a successful and prosperous state. Stalin and Zedong must have read this essay.

My new nonfiction book is Under the Care of the Fatherly Leader. It's a long exploration of the lives of Kim Il-Sung and Kim Jong-Il. I was more or less pushed towards this book by obvious recent events. Seneca's essay had particular gravity in relation to what I have read so far in this book. So far I have only read the first three chapters - I am roughly up to Kim Il-Sung's late twenties. His childhood in rural Korea and China is remarkably similar to that described in a book on China's Cultural Revolution I read in college. Wish I could remember the name of that one. So far I find in myself mixed feelings for Kim. Unlike his son and grandson, he labored for his country and fought for Korean independence. Patriotism like that certainly deserves my respect. On the other hand he was a Marxist. One of these days I'll get around to reading that rubbish; as Sun Tzu says, 'Know thine enemy'.