Many people believe that empathy is an essential aspect of moral decision-making. Yet Yale psychologist Paul Bloom in his controversial book Against Empathy argues that empathy is a poor tool for ethical decision-making. Yet this controversy is at least as old as Shakespeare. In Measure for Measure, Angelo is constantly criticized for his cold-heartedness and lack of empathy. Isabella, for one, argues he should put himself in her brother's position to judge his fate when she states that "If he had been as you, and you as he, / You would have slipped like him, but he like you / Would not have been so stern." (2.2. 8-86). Yet Angelo defends himself against such charges. He argues that we should also pity not only the people who are directly affected by the law, but also all the people who can be spared suffering by enforcing the law and deterring future crimes. " I show it [pity] most of all when I show justice, / For then I pity those I do not know," he argues (2.2.128-9).
What is the play saying about empathy and judicial decision-making? Should we make decisions with our heads or our hearts? Is there any middle ground? Is one position shown to be correct given what you know about the play? What do you think about this controversy?
In the play, Angelo has different views on decision-making compared to the duke. Angelo wants to bring forth the law and now make people start following it and Isabella's brother was just the unlucky example. An example from the book would be in 2.2 127-130 Isabella” yet show some pity” “ Angelo, I show it best when I show justice, For then I pity those I do not know.” ( Shakespear) Angelo is set on leading with his head and showing justice without mercy for the mistake Claudio made. Although if you were to turn it around and Angelo impregnated his wife before marriage would he want the same punishment on himself? This brings an interesting question to light about how much Angelo should lead with his head over heart. If he takes Claudio away he leaves his fiance's unborn child with no father. Or in other court cases, they can punish the individual but they are not going to be the only ones suffering from the crimes one has committed. There could be a middle ground in this case like serving a long sentence but that all depends on the judge and Angelos decision making. Additionally, it brings up the question if not Angelo but his brother or his friend did the same act as Claudio will they be punished the same, or someone who can pay Angelo off not serves their sentence? Lastly, how is it fair that these laws were not enforced until now and the consequences for them are so high? Again, could Angelo let Claudio off on this charge with a shorter sentence?
ReplyDeleteMeasure for Measure displays the balance between judicial decisions and empathy in a few different ways, not one being a perfect solution. This is shown through the juxtaposition of Angelo and characters like Isabella and The Duke. Angelo shows no empathy when making powerful decisions. Isabella begs him to see this differently as her and The Duke see the issues from their hearts, not only considering the law. This juxtaposition becomes more complex when Angelo admits that he may be in love with Isabella. Will his heart overpower his head now? In my mind, the play is commenting about how there is no clear balance between empathy and judicial decision-making and it depends on the specific situation for which the decision is being made. In the case of Claudio, it is obvious that sleeping with his soon to be wife is certainly not worthy of death. This is an example of Angelo's lack of empathy towards a given situation. Lucio Highlights the contrast between The Duke's method of ruling versus Angelo's: "Why, what a ruthless thing is this in him, for the rebellion of a codpiece to take away the life of a man! Would the duke that is absent have done this? Ere he would have hanged a man for the getting a hundred bastards, he would have paid for the nursing a thousand." (3.2.115-120). The prior Duke's punishments would have been significantly less severe and he showed much empathy when making decisions. However he may have even been a bit too forgiving. Angelo is described as "ruthless" because his punishments are extreme and he does not think empathetically. The play suggests that some amount of empathy should be used in decision-making, for Angelo uses none while the old duke may have used too much. This being said, different situations require different amounts of empathy.
ReplyDeleteI believe that from what we have read of the play so far, it shows that empathy is essential in making ethical decisions. I think this is shown most in Isabella’s plea for empathy. Isabella is a holy nun of the Christian church. Her whole job is to understand what is right and wrong. Furthermore, during the time of the play, what the church believed was fact. Because of these two things, to have Isabella argue for empathy is hugely suggestive that empathy is the right way to make ethical decisions. Additionally, throughout the play, Angelo comes off as the villain. This is most obvious when he says, “He shall not, Isabel, if you give me love,” in response to Isabella’s plea for Claudio’s life. In this instance, Angelo asking Isabella to give him love means he will only pardon Claudio if she sleeps with him. This is incredibly wrong on so many levels, and even by the standards of the time, this is wrong. As mentioned earlier, Isabella is a sister of the church, so to extort her into sex is an incredibly sinful and villainous act. If the only person against empathy is the clear antagonist of the story, it is not exactly strong support for the lack of empathy. Further, in this very same instance, Angelo would do the same thing that Claudio did. This makes the only person defending a lack of empathy not only the villain but a hypocrite too. These background elements work to completely discredit Angelo’s argument in the eyes of the viewer.
ReplyDeleteI will argue that personal empathy should play very little part in the adjudication of the law insofar as it leads to unequal treatment of people who are unequally sympathetic. First, I think it’s important that we know what exactly is meant by the term “empathy.” For example, if what we mean by empathy is that we should consider criminals to be human beings, then I think that justice does require empathy. However, it seems to me that what we are essentially talking about when we talk about empathy, and what Measure for Measure refers to as empathy, is this idea of differing standards for different people based on our empathy for them. The main issue with this view, in my opinion, is that it leads to potentially differing standards for different people. For example, Angelo explains, “The jewel that we find, we stoop and take ’t Because we see it; but what we do not see, We tread upon and never think of it.” (2.1 26-28) If we treat those we know well differently, if we treat those we feel bad for differently, this leads to unfair application to standards. Insofar as equitable enforcement is vital to justice, this doesn’t seem fair to me. Of course, in Measure for Measure, even though Angelo is meant to represent the levelheaded judge who believes that all should be evaluated in a similar manner, we very quickly see that this is not the case, as Angelo does not hold him self to the same strict standard he holds others to. In addition, my view comes with a number of other asterisks. First and foremost is that the view that the law should be stuck to as much as possible is only actually moral if the laws are well made in the first place. I wouldn’t say it’s good for Angelo or the Duke or Escalus to follow the letter of the law in the cause of Claudio, because I think the law that sentences Claudio to death is unjust. My statement is simply that, in the ideal society, laws should be adjudicated fairly, regardless of how the adjudicator may feel about the defendant.
ReplyDeleteMeasure for Measure displays a variety of different experiences in the judicial decision making process. Angelo is a strict enforcer of the rules when it comes to The Duke, but bends the rules for himself when he wants to sleep with Isabella and can benefit from breaking the law. Angelo preaches the rules to citizens and will go as far as sentencing the death penalty to someone for breaking the rules, but will use his heart and his own personal desire when he can get something out of it. So far, Angelo has gotten himself into an unbalanced mess of his own self desires and his governing laws. There is no middle ground with him because he is all over the place and it seems as though he thinks what he is doing is justified as an okay thing to do. Another example is whether or not Isabella should have sympathy for her brother and spare his life, but suffer moral consequences. On one hand she wants to save her brother but on another she wants to keep her virginity. In someway she has self empathy which allows her to be somewhat content with her decision to leave her brother to die. She is making a rational decision using her heart and her head. Isabella and Angelo are similar in a way that they both are using their hearts for what they think is okay and right. They are in different situations but they both use their hearts to deem the correct action. Angelo likes to think he is using his head and that his thoughts are justified but it is clear that he is making decisions on account for his own personal benefit. Given these two examples, it is hard to decide whether or not one position is better than the other because not a single character has displayed a strong and sturdy connection towards one side. I believe that all the characters shown so far don’t follow one specific path of head or heart but rather a mixture of both depending on when they feel like. I believe that once you pick a path, no matter what that path may be, you need to stick with it, and I haven’t seen a single character accomplish that.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the play, a balance of empathetic and unempathetic evaluation is the best way to make decisions regarding morality and the law. Angelo, who makes moral decisions coldly, is portrayed as being impatient due to his lack of empathy. When Elbow reports Froth and Pompey, Angelo leaves the room without listening to their stories fully and lazily leaves the decision up to Escalus, even telling him that he hopes Escalus will “find good cause to whip them all” (2.1 144). This is clearly irresponsible and a lazy solution to a problem that requires patience and attention. The play shows that it is wrong to be too unempathetic because it leads to a disinterest in the details of the stories of those being judged. On the other hand, the duke is far too lenient and does not enforce any laws. Although it is unclear whether he is lenient because he is empathetic, the play shows that being too “nice” in enforcing the law is also wrong because crime becomes rampant and uncontrollable. Escalus is portrayed as someone who finds the middle ground. He listens to both Froth’s and Pompey’s story and lets both of them go, seeing as anything illegal either of them might have done would have been unserious and not worth prison anyway. However, he gives both a stern warning not to fool around too much and become the subject of another complaint. I tend to agree with the play’s portrayal of the role of empathy in judicial decision-making. It is important to have a balance empathy and acting in strict accordance with the law. One obviously should not have too much empathy, as it is almost always possible to see situations charitably from another person’s perspective. Too much empathy would allow murderers with troubled childhoods to get away with their actions simply because one pities their trauma and suffering. However, that trauma does not justify murder, and it is still necessary to punish them for it. On the other hand, no empathy at all would mean treating all murders the same. A pre-meditated murder would hold the same weight as one committed in the heat of the moment during an emotional outburst. Without empathy, a starving thief stealing croissants would receive the same punishment as a rich politician doing the same. I think most would agree that there is some empathy to be had for the starving thief and the emotional murderer and that their crimes are not as immoral as those of their privileged and cold-blooded counterparts.
ReplyDeleteSo Far, in Measure for Measure, there have been two judges: Angelo and Escalus. Each represents how one can use different levels of empathy in judicial decisions. Angelo makes his decisions based on what he thinks is fit without hearing everything he will hear. Angelo makes cold-hearted decisions and is not fondly looked upon once he gives his harsh punishments. An example is when Angelo says, “ We must not make scarecrow of the law” (2.1.1). In this quote, Angelo talks about how they must use the law to scare people into obeying it. In other words, we have to use fear to control them. On the other hand, Escalus is the opposite of Angelo. He allows Pompey to leave but on one condition. If pomey is ever to return, Escalus will punish him by beating him (2.1.252-259). Escalus understands that Pompey did something wrong, but it is not a big deal if he does it once. Escalus uses empathy to make a decision that will affect Pompy’s life. If you look at the reactions to the decisions made by Escalus and Angelo, they are very different. People believe Angelo has to be taken out of power and is not fit for his role. However, Pompy leaves the courthouse not in fear but in thankfulness. He knows he has done something wrong, but if he does it again, he will get a harsh punishment. Angelo’s way of judging is effective but leaves people in fear, while Escalus’s way leaves people living in hope. People are more likely to live good lives if they live in the hope of a better future. If people live in fear, they will revolt against the laws. It is because of these facts that we need to use empathy when making judicial decisions.
ReplyDeleteIs Empathy overrated? Will it make decisions more fair or less?
ReplyDeleteTaking all judicial bias out of the way if we don’t take empathy into consideration what is stopping us from locking everyone up for the same time for the same crime. Take stealing for example, if someone is stealing for fun vs. stealing to eat what is the difference? The difference is how we look at it using empathy. Stealing is wrong in both situations, but the inherent reason for it is different. Angelo is cold and looks at no legal decision with empathy. The only time Angelo’s decisions to change his opinion is when he would gain something, for example he said he would save Isabella’s brother if she slept with him. Isabella even begged Angelo to save her brother, “I have a brother is condemn'd to die:/ I do beseech you, let it be his fault,/ And not my brother” (Isabella Act 2.2). Isabella is pleading to Angelo’s humanity, but he isn’t budging. Being human means that our heads and our hearts are the same, we have an entire system to try to disattach people from their emotions when deciding the jury. Empathy and justice is an age old question and in my opinion we can’t change what makes us human. If we take empathy out of the decision making process we won’t decrease incarceration we will just expand it ten fold. I do believe it’s more complicated than that, but I think without a doubt taking empathy out of the equation isn’t an option.
The play Measure for Measure gives a variety of different views on judicial decision-making regarding whether or not you should be empathetic toward the suspect. Ideally we should make decisions with our heads rather than our hearts for the sake of keeping things balanced and equal. In the play the Duke is extremely lenient with his way of enforcing laws. Which is not ideal. Angelo now being the judge has a whole nother perspective, he is strict and is willing to give extremely hard punishments for crimes that are not deserving of this. For example giving Claudio the death penalty in Act 2, “Sir, he must die” (2.1 33). Making this a difficult question to answer because neither of the characters have been consistent. Going from someone who doesn't enforce things to someone who will give out the death penalty is a huge jump. The Duke and Angelo are a good example of someone making decisions with their heart and with their head. The Duke has had more experience and knows what consequence is ideal for the crime. Angelo being known, wanting to prove his dominance, his harsh punishments show that he is not going to make a deal or make any sort of accommodation. In my opinion there needs to be a middle ground. Although we haven't seen much of that yet in the play I think it is important. Understanding someone's background and knowing what they are influenced by may change a judge's view on what their punishment should be. While following the law is certainly important, making decisions with our hearts is almost important. As long as there is a good balance I believe this is the right way to go.
ReplyDelete