Mercy and Justice

John Locke argues that “in a state of nature, men are free, equal, and independent”
(Forde 1). Unlike Hobbes who argues that human beings in a state of nature have no law to
guide their relations, Locke argues that there is natural law that guides the behavior of human
beings in the state of nature. At the very basic, these natural laws require humans in a state of
nature to respect other people’s right to life, liberty, and property. As far as protection of
these three basic rights is concerned, there is no difference between natural and state or man-
made law. Under both natural and state law, justice involves punishing people who violate
these three rights of people.
In his Second Treatise of Government, Locke examined not only the concept of
natural rights but also mercy. He defines mercy as “the power to act according to discretion,
for the public good, without the prescription of the law, and sometimes even against it”
(Turner & Gaus 1070). Thus, it seems almost impossible for mercy to coexist with justice
because mercy requires deviation from the law while justice upholds the law.
Justice consists of giving people their due. It requires that one receives appropriate
punishment for their wrongdoing. Mercy, on the other hand, helps wrongdoers to avoid
punishment or to receive punishment that is less severe than the one that they deserve. It does
not matter whether one is following the Law of the State or Natural Law, mercy derails
justice in both sets of laws. Thus, as much as possible, one should avoid showing mercy to

Surname 2
wrongdoers because it is counterproductive and weakens protections to people’s rights both
under Natural Law, as conceived by Locke, and Laws of the State.

Surname 3

Works Cited

Forde, Steven. John Locke and the Natural Law and Natural Rights Tradition
Turner, Piers Norris, and Gerald Gaus. “John Locke (1632–1704): Second Treatise of
Government (1690) 1.” Public Reason in Political Philosophy. Routledge, 2017. 108-
147.