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 (2.2128-9).
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?
I think the play makes the argument that it is impossible to make just decisions based off of solely cool calculation and a utilitarian perspective. This idea is revealed through Angelo, who attempts to be a fair judge who uses only the letter of the law instead of empathy, but fails in his pursuit of justice. Although Angelo states that he applies the same law to everyone without bias, to the point that he would "let mine judgement pattern out my death", he is in fact extremely biased as a judge, as he refuses to obey the very law (fornication) that he seeks to kill Claudio for (Act 2 scene 1 line 32). Despite the fact that Angelo wishes to uphold just equally and fairly, he still falls in love with Isabella, causing him to act corruptly and attempt to force her to "give him love" in exchange for Claudio's life (a crime which is obviously way worse than the fornication Claudio committed with his basically wife) (2,4,155). Therefore, since the most seemingly incorruptible and pious character in the story turns out to be a worse lawbreaker than everyone else, Shakespeare indicts the idea that anyone can be a fair judge using their head and the letter of the law alone. Instead, he makes the argument that judges should employ a middle ground like Escalus, where they look at each case individually, empathize with the accused, and determine if they truly deserve punishment. I wholeheartedly disagree with the sentiment that empathy is overrated. Without empathy, a completely sociopathic society would experience no improvement whatsoever. The would be no desire for people to help each other improve society if everyone acted in their own self interest. Additionally, the justice system would fail, as judges would probably look to arrest as many people as possible and laws would be designed for self interest, not fairness. Therefore, empathy needs to play a major role in the justice system to promote fairness and equality.
ReplyDeleteShakespeare's message is that pursuing strict and just interpretation of the law is virtuous. The law in this case, seems to take upon an Aristotelian purpose. Aristotle says that something is virtuous when it fulfills its purpose. Thus a virtuous knife is one that is sharp and cuts well, a virtuous law is one that protects the weak and punishes sin, and a virtuous judge is one that fully and indiscriminately upholds the law. Justice means that people get exactly what they deserve, no more and no less. Angelo, in the play, takes upon the mantel of the virtuous arbiter in the play away from the ineffective Duke Vincentio. Angelo, his name literally meaning angel in Italian, is presented as a man of virtue, strict, moralistic, and unwavering in his convictions. He sentences Claudio to death for fornication in order to teach a lesson to the Viennese people that sexual immorality will not be tolerated. His decree is less about giving everyone the death penalty, but more in order to protect the people from their own sexual desires (2.2.128-9). Aristotle says that the most virtuous man is the one who gives to the poor for no benefit of his own. Angelo seems to fit the mold here, while Escalus believes that Angelo should administer mercy in times of need. However, Angelo understands the consequences of showing empathy to the wrong people. "We must not make a scarecrow out of the law...their terror" (2.1.0-4). Removing the harsh and equitable punishment for a crime leads criminals to believe that they can also receive that same mercy from a sympathetic judge. As long as there is not absolute retribution for sin, no criminal will respect the law and thus turn it into a scarecrow. I fundamentally disagree with the idea of empathy in law. If a cold-blooded murderer has a sob story and a harsh upbringing do they deserve a lesser punishment that another who didn't? Must the victims bear the trauma of seeing the perpetrator escape justice because he appealed to the judge's emotions? Law is law, even one discrepancy in punishment means everyone has been punished unfairly. The law's purpose is to, first, deliver justice, second, protect the innocent, and third, discourage people from committing. A virtuous court, by Aristotle's own logic, must fulfill these purposes to the best of their ability. Someone might say, but Angelo's own impotency proves that their can be no just arbiter. But I would say quite the opposite as Angelo's fall from grace shows that if we leave the punishment up to the judge's emotions that they will fail miserably to convict. They will be swayed, persuaded, and appealed to. Only when the law is absolute will justice truly be served.
ReplyDeleteThroughout the reading up to part four of Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure, he clearly emphasizes that, although a total lack of empathy is negative in his portrayal of Angelo, too much empathy is a little overrated. The Friar, formally known as the duke, is described as a very lenient judge, described by himself as letting “headstrong weeds [rage in Vienna], which for this fourteen years I have let slip” (1.3.21-22). In this case, these headstrong weeds symbolize the crime in Vienna, which has grown out of control under the Duke’s lenient leadership, highlighting a negative portrayal of the Dukes empathetic behavior when dealing with the law. A second way that empathy is portrayed as overrated in Measure for Measure is through the arrest of Claudio on the charge of fornication. Claudio speaks of his arrest, not by blaming Angelo, but by calling out the Duke’s lack of enforcement of the laws. When questioned by Lucio from where his restraint comes from, Claudio speaks, “from too much liberty, my Lucio” (1.2.121). He continues that the people are “like rats that raven down their proper bane, a thirsty evil, and when we drink, we die” (1.2.126). Here Claudio is blaming the Duke for giving the people their “proper bane” in too much “liberty,” causing himself to be arrested for breaking the law. Therefore, the Dukes description of the law as insignificant and Claudio’s description of the effect of insignificant law as negative shows that empathetic law is law that only causes more issues; empathy is overrated in law.
ReplyDeleteThe play advocates for a heath middle ground between empathy and rigid applications of the law. The primary plot of the play is a deep look into how being too strict with applying the law, specifically when those enforcing the law are guilty of the same crimes, can corrupt a legal system. While this would be an indication that the message of the play is for empathy, not rigidity, a deeper look at all events reveals more. The events I am referring to primarily involve Escalus. Escalus' judicial philosophy is shown early on to be empathetic. He listens to all of Pompey's story before passing judgement, even when Angelo did not. While this would seem to be another score for empathy, later actions by Escalus reveal more complexity. When passing judgement on Mistress Overdone, she begs for mercy. Escalus responds, saying, "Double and treble admonition, and still forfeit in / the same kind! This would make mercy swear and play / the tyrant. (3.2.184-186)" Though Escalus usually gives people the benefit of the doubt, when there is no doubt he is strict. He is the model judge throughout the play, as he is the one to walk the thin tightrope between empathy and strict adherence. Escalus will listen to a person's story, attempting to get all the facts before passing judgement. Then, he will pass a punishment suitable for the crime, often a lenient punishment. However, you don't want to end up back in his court. If you betray his trust, he comes down with an iron hammer. This is what the play props up as its model judge and superior judicial philosophy.
ReplyDeleteShakespeare reveals in his play that humans will always follow their emotions in difficult situations. One example is Claudio's desire to live. Even though Isabella has stated her disgust with Angelo's offer, and Claudio has also stated that she should not agree to Angelo's offer, the moment his death starts to become a reality, Claudio begs Isabella to go to Angelo and save his life. Isabella starts by stating, "Be ready, Claudio, for your death tomorrow." (3.1.121) to which Claudio eventually replies, "Sweet sister, let me live. What sin you do to save a brother's life" (3.1.149-150). Claudio is giving in completely to his emotions. This would save Claudio's life but cause Isabella harm as a result, Claudio cannot approach the situation without empathizing for Isabella. This would mean abandoning any attempt to save Claudio's life. Therefore, the best option is finding a middle ground where Claudio empathizes with Isabella but also thinks of a clever plan to help both of them. This "middle ground" is illustrated through the Friar, also known as the Duke. "Go you to Angelo, answer his requiring with plausible obedience, agree with his demands to the point...we shall advise this wronged maid to stead upon your appointment, go in your place" (3.1.270-277). The Friar suggest Isabella accept Angelo's requests but send a maiden in her place. This will prevent Claudio's death and save Isabella from Angelo. The friar used his heart in his desire to save Claudio and Isabella, but also use his head to come up with the plan. While the friar is able to find middle-ground for Claudio and Isabella, Angelo struggles to find a middle ground with his request to Isabella. Angelo allows his love for Isabella to dictate all of his decisions and he admits to Isabella, "Plainly conceive I love you" (2.4.152). Angelo puts no thought to this idea of empathy or what his requests mean for Isabella. Instead, Angelo's heart shrouds his judgement and he shows no empathy or rational thought. Moreover, Angelo's demands to Isabella are worse than the Claudio's fornication. Angelo states "he shall not, Isabel, if you give me love" revealing the only thing which can save Claudio is forcing Isabella love Angelo. Angelo is proposing to trade Claudio's life and ruin Isabella's, similar to Claudio and Isabella's situation where Isabella accepting Angelo's demands would have saved Claudio but ruined Isabella. Empathy is necessary when making decisions, however, should not be the sole factor in judicial decision-making.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn the play Measure for Measure, Shakespeare gives examples of different types of decision makers and how their leniency and level of empathy effects the world around them in a positive or negative light. As the reader has seen through trials of Angelo and Escalus, and the memories of citizens of the Duke, the levels of their empathy and understanding are on completely different areas of the spectrum. Throughout the novel, it is clear that the total lack of empathy or the total understanding of empathy are far too rash, and that the middle ground is the best option. The reader sees this middle ground through the character of Escalus, with the literal meaning of his name being “scales”, and the representation of balance and blind justice in the criminal justice system. When Pompey and Froth are on trial, Escalus has empathy for them and states, “I advise you let me not find you before me again upon any complaint whatsoever…If I do, I shall beat you to your tent” (2.1. 253-256). In stark comparison to Angelo’s punishment, the reader sees that Escalus has empathy for Pompey and the position he is in, and lets him off with a warning and incentive to not repeat his crimes. On the other hand, Escalus knows when the time is right to deliver a harsh punishment to an offender. When talking to the Justice about Claudio’s death, Escalus recognizes the sacrifice that needs to be made and says, “Mercy is not itself that oft looks so. / Pardon is still the nurse of second woe. / But yet, poor Claudio. There is no remedy.” (2.2. 292-294). In this moment, Escalus knows that the proper punishment is harsh, yet necessary for the town, and that Angelo’s decision is irreversible. There is a clear middle ground between having no discretion and having maximum discretion, and the best outcome is to balance the two between cases and people. In the end, there does need to be a presence of empathy in the justice system, but not to the point where it overwhelms the severity of the crime and does not allow the proper punishment.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn Shakespeare's Measure for Measure he presents different views on empathy as the impact it has on our decision making. One example of a perceived lack of empathy that is seen as correct is Isabella's lack of empathy for her brother when he is facing the death penalty. After Claudio asks Isabella to accept Angelo's proposition, she responds "O you beast!/faithless coward!O dishonest wretch!/Wilt thou be made a man out of my vice?," (3.1) scorning him and literally calling him a beast for suggesting it. In this instance the play seems to be arguing that it is better to make decisions logically rather than emotionally since Claudio appears to be the one in the wrong here. Because Claudio is not willing to die for his and his sisters virtue since he is afraid of death he is portrayed as a coward and yelled at by his sister. This seems to portray that Claudio is in the wrong, as he is willing to give up his and his sisters honor for his life. On the other hand, however, Angelo is often presented as someone who has too little empathy which is also shown as wrong. While in cases of virtue the play sometimes expresses little empathy as at least somewhat just, it also comments on Angelo's over-harshness in punishment. In one scene Lucio even comments "A little more lenity to lechery would do no harm in him" (3.2 92-94). Here, Lucio comments that perhaps Angelo is being too harsh and not empathetic enough, even though in the previous scene being unsympathetic and calculating when it came to moral judgement was portrayed as good. I think with the dichotomy of the portrayal of empathy here the play tries to make a statement that we must find a middle ground, although it does not outline one. It shows that it was good that Isabella stood true to her morals and was unsympathetic but also comments that Angelo's strict interpretation is not the most just, showing us that the best interpretation of empathy is somewhere in between.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn Shakespeare's play Measure for Measure, Shakespeare experiments with two types of justice (the classic Mr. Second Chance versus the rigid Mr. No 'Buts') and whether a strict interpretation of the law is more virtuous than an empathetic interpretation. Within the play, Mr. Duke appoints Angelo as his second-hand-man to rule Vienna, who attempts to rule the city with a strict enforcement of the law. In this scenario, Claudio is sent to a life sentence since he had impregnated his wife before marriage. Even though Claudio was 1. so close to his marriage date and 2. the premarital impregnation law has not been enforced for years, Angelo was firm on his morals, and ruled that the law must be strict no matter what (unless of course Claudio's sister sleeps with him... something very angel-like of course). On the other hand we see how the ruler Escalus, a man of empathy, handles his court cases. Hearing the stories of criminals before he made a ruling, he often made his punishments in a case-by-case scenario, ruling based on different degrees of severity rather than a harsh line of "broke the law" and "didn't break law". In the play, Escalus punishes both Pompey and Froth, but on different severity based on their crimes. He often gave out second chances, and let them off stating that if either one of them were to return to court again, they shall be beat. The comparison of these two justice systems are interesting especially since there is no clear answer of whether ruling with an iron fist is superior to ruling with empathy, since both justice systems have their merits. Angelo believes that if we were to punish lawbreakers with maximum severity, no one else would cause any crimes. He states, that we "must not make a scarecrow of the law", never wavering in the decision making. However, Escalus believes that there are more nuanced ways we can apply legal punishments, and that he would rather "cut a little" rather than "fall, and bruise to death"; he would rather prune and snip a tree than cut the whole thing down. Though the perfect justice system would probably be a small mixure of both systems, perhaps that would just be a utopian world, since Claudio is probably going to die unless his sister is willing to sleep with Angelo.
ReplyDeleteJudicial decision making can become a slippery slope when universal statements become the standardized methodology for assessing a case. Measure for Measure uses the different failures of a “man, proud man / Dressed in a little brief authority / Most ignorant of what he’s most assured,” who is given control of the scales of justice to show how failure at balancing impartial treatment, empathy, and disciplinarianism can lead to tragic unfair treatment (2.2. 146-148). The Duke and Angelo both find their private lives completely at odds with their approaches to justice. Lucio aligns the Duke’s lenciency with a belief that ‘he would mouth with a beggar though she smelt brown bread and garlic” (3.2. 184-185). The Duke is in complete denial of any such behavior, and acts offended and disgusted at the idea of him having inappropriate sexual relations. Conversely, Angelo privately entreats Isabella to “lay down the treasures of your body / To this supposed” whilst simultaneously condemning Claudio to death for a crime of a far less egregious nature (2.4. 103-104). The Duke, in his Friar disguise, discovers Angelo’s hypocrisy and so develops a deceptive plan to expose him, using his own moral beliefs that “He who the sword of heaven will bear / Should be as holy as severe” (3.2. 261-262). This is a metaphorical statement of Measure for Measure’s developing theme that you cannot criticize another person for a crime you have not equally purged from your own self In this point of view, empathy comes in the form of understanding the temptation for a crime but also knowing that there is an ability to resist it within the criminal. I don’t necessarily think that the best standard for judicial decisions has been shown within Measure for Measure yet, as I do think that empathy to some extent is an important factor for the prevention of future crimes. On the other hand, I believe that hypocrisy within justice is certainly an important issue that the play has begun to explore.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn Measure for Measure, Shakespeare provides several different perspectives on the concept of empathy to emphasize its impact within the story. At first, when Isabella learns of Claudio's fate, she attempts to appeal it with Angelo, hoping that he will grant her brother mercy. However, Angelo will not do it unless Isabella agrees to have sex with him. Although she had an opportunity to save Claudio, she decides to maintain her values, and rejects Angelo’s offer. However, she still feels a sense of empathy toward her brother. She explains that, "O, were it but my life, /I'd throw it down for your deliverance/As frankly as a pin" (3.1.117-119). For Isabella, she is at first willing to die for Claudio. However, giving into Angelo's sexual demands is something that she is completely unwilling to do. When Claudio learns of these demands, he is shocked by the complete lack of empathy for his own situation. He questions, "Has he affections in him/That thus can make him bite the law by th' nose, /When he would force it?" (3.1.122-125) To Claudio, it is apparent that not only does Angelo not display the slightest empathy toward him, but he also uses the entire situation as an opportunity for self-pleasure. While Angelo upholds stringent laws and harsh punishments within their society, he is sinning in the process, and does not think twice about his actions. Despite Claudio's frustration, he still attempts to convince Isabella that she should give in to Angelo’s demands, and pleads, "Sweet sister, let me live/What sin you do to save a brother's life, /Nature dispenses with the deed so far/That it becomes a virtue" (3.1.149-152). Evidently, Claudio prioritizes his survival, and the means by which Isabella ensures this are not as significant to him. In effect, Isabella quickly turns on her brother, and completely rejects her previous sense of empathy, exclaiming, "O, you beast! / O faithless coward, O dishonest wretch.../I'll pray a thousand prayers for thy death, /No word to save thee" (3.1.153-164). Due to Claudio’s complete disregard of his sister’s morals, she no longer feels badly for him, and is not willing to help him escape the situation. In this scene, the variance of empathy is especially significant. Not only does it add a new layer to the story, but it also makes the situation more complicated for all of the individuals involved. Shakespeare definitely utilizes this component of the story effectively, as he makes it the catalyst of the story’s action.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I believe that the argument for empathy that Isabella presents is weak. She claims that "you [Angelo] would have slipped like him [Claudio], but he like you / Would not have been so stern" (2.2.85-6). If for nothing else, Isabella's claim falls short because there is no justification for why Angelo would behave similarly yet Claudio would behave differently. Lord Claudio could very well act just as tyrannically "If power change purpose" (1.4.58). Considering his apparent austerity (at least up to this point), Angelo might not even have committed the crime. There are too many assumptions for Isabella's plead to convince Angelo.
ReplyDeleteIn general, though, I believe that empathy has an important role in maintaining the discretion of the law. As the duke laments his passivity to Friar Thomas, he explains that Vienna has "strict statutes and most biting laws" (1.3.20). Whether the law actually is too harsh is one issue, but more important is that the power of "strict statutes" need not rise or fall uniformly. In other words, it may be acceptable for a certain law to be overlooked in some instance without compromising the overall effectiveness of the law. Though Angelo argues that "when I show justice … I pity those I do not know" (2.2.128-9), in the case of Claudio and Isabella it is clear that there was no real harm from which the law is obliged the protect the public.
One might argue that in the play's situation, empathy is not as applicable, since both the Duke and Angelo repeatedly suggest that the law is indeed deficient overall. However, another example that highlights a need for empathy is the case of Pompey and Froth. Whereas Angelo is simply "hoping [Escalus will] find good cause to whip them all" and leaves (2.1.144), Escalus listens intently, and the testimony of Pompey and Froth justifies Escalus's leniency to the audience. Discretion is also reflected in the modern practice of jury nullification, where a jury can in rare circumstances choose not to enforce a law in a particular case. The entire purpose of the judicial system is to interpret the law under particular conditions, and empathy is necessary for the law to exhibit nuance.
I honestly do not think the play is attempting to make one singular stance on the issue of empathy. I think that the play intentionally provides so many perspectives so that the reader or viewer can come to their own conclusion after seeing all of the options. The nature of art itself is so subjective and this play is no exception. One person may read
ReplyDelete“ISABELLA: Must he needs die?
ANGELO: Maiden, no remedy.
ISABELLA: Yes, I do think that you might pardon him, and neither heaven nor man grieve at the mercy.
ANGELO: I will not do’t.” (2.2. 50-54),
and fully agree with Isabella while another fully agrees with Angelo. Because there are so many different ways the text can be interpreted, I don’t think we can say the entire play has one stance. Though, I am sure Shakespeare had a stance on the issue but at this point it’s all personal interpretation.
In my personal opinion, I think that empathy should absolutely be a part of making decisions in the justice system. If we were living in a society of robots, then maybe it would be alright to only use logic to create punishments, but we are human beings and humans are incredibly complex by nature. Because of this, it is ridiculous to assume that the decisions humans make can be reduced to right and wrong. People do good things for bad reasons, and people do bad things for good reasons and every case is different. Two people might rob the same store and steal the same loaf of bread, but one might be doing it to feed their entire family who’s living in a box, while the other is doing it just for fun. In my opinion, those cases should not be treated the same because even though the both did a bad thing, one had good reasons. All this to say, I don’t think legal decisions should be made solely based on empathy or solely based on rules, I think there should be a middle ground. The laws act as a base line or a structure to build on and then empathy is the material used to build on/take off of the base. Like human nature, I don’t think the issue is black or white, I think we need to find a perfect shade of grey in the middle.
The message of Measure for Measure regarding empathy and judicial decision-making is that there should be a just way to make decisions while keeping empathy in mind, without letting it take over – it has just not been discovered yet. Angelo is notorious for making decisions purely based on hard law, excluding empathy in any form. Although he has every opportunity to show mercy towards the people he is judging, he still chooses to strictly stick to the law: “In our remove be thou at full ourself. Morality and mercy in Vienna. Live in thy tongue and heart”. (1.1.46-48). This method of decision making has caused much pain and hatred towards himself. Excluding mercy and empathy completely is clearly shown to not be a realistic way to decide the fate of citizens. This method only causes mocking rather than fear, which is necessary in order for punishments to be useful, as the Duke says: “We have strict statutes and most biting laws, the needful bits and curbs to headstrong weeds, which for this fourteen years we have let slip, even like an o’ergrown lion in a cave that goes not out to prey. Now, as fond fathers, having bound up the threat’ning twigs of birch only to stick it in their children’s sight for terror, not to use – in time the rod more mocked than feared – so our decrees, dead to infliction, to themselves are dead, and liberty plucks justice by the nose, the baby beats the nurse, and quite athwart, goes all decorum.” (1.3.20-32). Although consistently applying the law to all is generally a good concept, each individual case is more complicated than the simplified big picture. Less severe offences should receive less severe punishments. This method of punishment still applies the law somewhat consistently, but where the consistently rightfully lacks, empathy takes its place in the form of judging each case individually to determine which level of punishment the parties at hand deserve, if any at all.
ReplyDeleteIn the play Measure for Measure, we observe two extremes in judicial decision making. The duke is empathetic towards his people and is very lenient when it comes to enforcing the law. On the other hand, Angelo strictly enforces the statues in place and does not rely on emotion in his decision making. The play is making the argument that there is a middle ground to judicial decision making, one that enforces the law but is also empathetic to those being charged. During a conversation between Escalus and Angelo, Angelo states that they should not make a scarecrow of the law. Escalus responds saying, "Let us be keen and rather cut a little than fall and bruise to death. Alas, this gentleman whom I would save had a most noble father. Let but your Honor know, whom I believe to be most trait in virtue" (2.1.6-7). Escalus is saying that they should not be so harsh in enforcing the law, explicitly referring the Claudio who Angelo sentenced to death. Escalus does not believe the full penalty needs to be invoked. Escalus goes on to say that Claudio came from a good family and is a man of virtue not deserving of his sentence. Escalus is the middle ground in this play between the Duke and Angelo in the way he enforces the law. Furthermore, the play also highlights to effects of the two extremes in judicial decision-making. In the case of the duke, as a result of his overly empathetic judicial decisions has resulted in people feel that they can violate the law with impunity. The law in this case no longer has any purpose while the duke was ruling as he did not do anything to enforce it. In the case of Angelo's judicial decision making, he lacks any empathy and as a result, is excessively harsh in his rulings. Overall, I believe Escalus's judicial decision making is the best as he recognizes that they should also look at the person who committed the crime rather than the crime itself.
ReplyDelete