Mercy from the Merciless?

As human beings, I would venture to say that we think of compassion, gentleness, and caring for others as honorable and esteemed virtues. We generally look favorable upon organizations and people who dedicate their lives to these goals, and we, as a society, strive to be more fully compassionate, gentle, and caring. (While these statements are incredibly broad generalizations and in no way apply to all people or all societies, I think most people would agree with them on one level or another.) However, what I found interesting is that this article brought up the fact that these qualities are stimulated by their antithesis. We know how to be gentle and compassionate because we have been ruthless and vile. We know how to show mercy because we have been merciless.

Asad said, “Western kindness has also, however, been a response to suffering—especially to the cruelty generated in European society. The subtleties of mental and physical punishment, the ingenious way of inflicting harm—on the battlefield, in prisons and concentration camps, and between members of the modern family—have also produced compassionate techniques, discourses, and experts for addressing suffering. (Asad 127)” It seems incredibly ironic—and in fact rather twisted—that such noble qualities of our society are inherently rooted in their violent and awful opposite qualities. Must we have the bad to get the good? And if so, why? Perhaps it goes back to the arguments of Locke and Hobbes to determine why this is the case: Are we inherently ill-willed as humans, and compassion is a meer side-effect?