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?
The decision about whether to go with your head or heart is an age-old question. The heart is always associated with empathy and placing yourself in their shoes. The head is associated with logic and reasoning. Both have their critiques, and that is unavoidable. One thing is for sure, and that is there is no middle ground. It is to either use empathy or not. The idea of using a little empathy to judge someone is impossible. It is all or nothing. That does not mean that sometimes heart plays into it. For example, someone commits a petty crime, and it is his or her first crime. The judge let them off due to it being their first crime is not empathy; it is operating off the facts. Sometimes that may be mistaken for empathy. However, it is not empathy, just the facts of the situation. Many court cases face different nuances that cause trials to last for ages. The best way to solve this is to put pre-set punishments on crimes. This would also take into account the number of crimes committed. Justice is supposed to be fair. Rational thinking is the best way to accomplish that. While it may seem cold, it is the only way to make sure justice is served. In Measure for Measure by William Shakespeare, Angelo states, “’ Tis very pregnant, 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.”(41 25-27) Angelo is pointing out that a man is being punished for a crime that others could have committed very well. Although, they were not caught. Justice should not dwell upon the crimes not discovered but rather the ones standing before the jury. To achieve that goal, one must not have empathy for those on trial but seek to find the truth of their crime.
ReplyDeleteThe question whether or not decisions should come from the heart or the head seems to be very situational. In society, it is deemed that decisions from the heart contain empathy. Whereas decisions that come from the head are deemed rational or some instances, cold. The idea of a middle ground comes into play as well. This idea seems like it would be situational. For example, there will be some cases where the answer is clear to those in power. However, there will also be moments where the answer is not crystal clear. That is where the idea of a middle ground comes into play. In Measure for Measure by William Shakespeare, Angelo is accused of being cold-hearted. The cause for this accusation is for using his head to make a decision about Isabella’s’ brother, and not his heart. The logical approach to decision making seems like the best approach. Using one’s head and rational thinking in the justice system is the best way to establish the idea of fairness. In argument over the punishment of Isabella’s brother, Angelo says, “takes notes of what is done, and, like a prophet, looks in a class that shows what future evils-” (2.2 p.65 121-122). In response, all Isabella says is “yet show some pity” (2.2 p.65 127). This response illustrates that Isabella is longing for Angelo to show empathy. She wants him to use his heart, even though that is not the best approach for dealing with punishment. Although there should be some empathy involved in decision-making, it should not be the only factor to base a decision off of. The best way is to use logic and reasoning, even if those involved are not happy about it.
ReplyDeleteThe play argues for a middle ground in decision-making. While Angelo, the center of attention in the story, forfeits empathy in his decision making, he is also portrayed as ‘the devil’ and a hotbed for criticism against the judicial system’s infringement of rights. Deciding too much with one’s head and not with one’s heart makes one ignorant of situations around them. Isabella points out that many people in society are opposed to the strict punishments against adultery, and says, "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). On the other hand, deciding with one’s heart and not one’s head can undermine and make a mockery of the law. In response to Escalus’s plea to save Claudio, Angelo declares, “We must not make a scarecrow of the law, / setting it up to fear the birds of prey, / And let it keep one shape till custom make it / Their perch and not their terror.” (2.1. 1-4). Should Angelo put himself in the perpetrator’s shoes every time a crime is committed, and disincentive to commit such crimes would go away, and those affected by such crimes will be left to dry. I do not think that one position is ever entirely correct. In life, we never know the full consequences of our actions. We can only speculate as to whether Angelo’s decision to execute Claudio deters adultery in the future. Thus, to claim that one position is more ‘right’ or more ‘wrong’ than the other misses the idea that each decision should incorporate bits of each mindset.
ReplyDeleteIn Measure for Measure it is unclear if empathy or justice is considered "right", but what is evident is that empathy should always be considered when figuring out if someone is guilty of a crime or not. In my opinion, empathy can be shown towards the person who is guilty and the victim. Throughout the play, Angelo, the Duke, and Escalus are constantly contradicting each other, and since we have not finished the book yet, we as readers do not know which “judge” is correct. I believe that Escalus is the judge that will be correct in the end. Even though he is more lenient towards people who should have more punishment he is definitely more level-headed and sensible compared to the Duke and Angelo. An example in Measure for Measure of a character showing empathy is when Isabella is trying to convince Angelo to show empathy with Claudio’s trial, "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) Isabella is admitting to Angelo that he needs to empathize with Claudio because he could easily have been in the same situation. Angelo does not know at this point what he needs to do, show empathy or justice. Empathy is shown time and time again throughout the book and makes it clear that empathy is not overrated and should be the right decision. Though I do not think Angelo is capable of providing empathy towards people who are guilty, I think he comes to a realization that he should not be so quick to judge people if the roles could easily be switched. Angelo along with the other judges should not ask themselves should they show empathy or justice, but who should they show empathy more to the victim or the person guilty.
ReplyDeleteWhen considering the use of empathy in a judicial system, it is important to not only consider what people want, but also to consider what the system needs in order to be effective. Looking to the text, at the beginning of Act 1 Escalus is attempting to persuade Angelo into lowering Claudio’s sentence. One of Angelo’s arguments is that, “This gentleman whom I would save had a most noble father.” (2.1 pg.39 7-8). Should Angelo be more lenient on Claudio’s sentence due to the fact that his father was a noble man? Our heads (the justice system) would say “absolutely not”, but our hearts might disagree. The problem that arises here is the fact that once you allow inconsistent external factors to infiltrate a consistent and repeatable system, that system is no longer equitable. We see this occurring in modern times with certain groups of people being given inequitable punishment. Take for example police officers getting lesser punishments for crimes compared to the general population. Police officers are letting their co-workers off the hook for crimes simply because they work together and have empathy for one another. Is this equitable? Obviously you don’t want to see your friends, family, or yourself get punished, but it’s necessary for the system to work. As hard as this might be, this means that regardless of perpetrator or their surrounding situation, the punishment must be uniform if the system is going to be consistent and equitable. However, this does not mean that I believe this is the best solution. I actually believe that an empathetic and holistic evaluation is necessary for each and every case, and from this evaluation a rational punishment is handed out. This being said, a system such as I described above is extremely susceptible to inequality and inconsistency. The point of having a justice system is to hand out fair and impartial punishments. If you allow humans to be the sole decision makers in systemic decisions, the system has no purpose.
ReplyDeleteIn the play, Measure for Measure, when faced with punishing crimes, Shakespeare confronts a difficult and deep argument of choosing between punishments and empathy. When Claudio, Isabella’s brother, commits fornication and is sentenced to death, she pleads to Angelo asking him to show empathy and understanding for her brother. Yet, Angelo strongly believes, “It is the law, not I condemn your brother: / Were he my kinsman, brother, or my son, / It should be thus with him: he must die tomorrow”(2.2 103-5), therefore Angelo feels he must strictly enforce the law. In terms of Isabella’s empathetic perspective, it is important to use empathy to understand the depth of peoples’ situations and place yourself in their shoes. With empathy, it becomes easier to communicate with others, make heartfelt decisions, and can help find and solve the roots of problems, as there is more mutual understanding. However, Angelo views empathy as forgiveness for a crime without any consequences. As the temporary ruler of the country, in order to rule, the law needs to be enforced and people need to obey it, “Those many had not dared to do that evil, / if the first that did the edict infringe had answer’d for his deed: now ‘tis awake” (2.2 118-120). Therefore, in order to make decisions for committed crimes, empathy and punishment need to be used in conjunction. When they are not used together, people can be shown too much mercy and not face consequences for their actions as well as situations can be bias. However, in situations where judges used both empathy and enforcement of the law, they can make fair and just punishments proportionate to the severity of the crimes.
ReplyDeleteIn Measure for Measure by William Shakespeare, contrasting judgements demonstrate that empathy is essential to proportional punishment; further, the immediate harms caused by Claudio’s over-punishment demonstrates that proportional punishment is better than over-punishment for the sake of deterrence. For instance, though Escalus is tasked with judging Pompey’s straightforward prostitution case, he still genuinely tries to understand Pompey’s perspective, asking, “howsoever you color it in being a tapster, / are you not? Come, tell me true. It shall be the / better for you” (2.1.228-230). In investigating Pompey’s true story, Escalus determines Pompey is not a danger to society and lets him off with a warning. Conversely, in judging Claudio’s case of fornication (involving a complex timeline and grey areas), Angelo makes a swift, decisive, offstage judgement to condemn Claudio to death. Escalus, motivated by empathy, ultimately makes an informed judgement about the proportional response to the situation, while Angelo’s lack of interest in the case’s details results in the entirely disproportional punishment of a very narrowly guilty man. Based on the play, empathy and the desire to contextualize crimes results in more proportional punishments. Measure for Measure also takes a stance on the importance of proportionality over the deterrence that disproportionate sentences may cause. The ethical distinction between the two is that proportional punishment provides the intrinsically accurate amount of retributive-justice for each crime. Alternatively, high sentencing intended to deter relies on some possible future reduction in crime as its justification. Over-punishing therefore assumes that future benefit will outweigh the imminent, negative effects of disproportional punishment. In Measure for Measure, Shakespeare emphasizes the imminent negative effects of over-punishment such as bolstering a power-hungry punisher and causing mental trauma for convicted individuals’ loved ones. Blinded by a desire to deter, Angelo views each trial as an opportunity to over-punish defendants, once out loud hoping “[Escalus will] find good cause to whip [Pompey and Froth]” before hearing any details of the case (2.1.144). Meanwhile, Isabella is left emotionally struggling to reconcile and fix her brother’s disproportionate punishment, making her a victim of her brother’s over-punishment. The play’s overwhelming focus on the near term downsides to deterrence-focused punishment rather than the positive outcomes of over-punishment demonstrates its preference for proportional, empathy forward punishment. Overall, Measure for Measure highlights the importance of empathy in procuring the most just method of punishment for crime.
ReplyDeleteIn William Shakespeare’s play, Measure for Measure, empathy proves to be a pivotal factor regarding how characters make their decisions. The play encourages incorporating empathy into decision making because it ultimately contributes to a smoother system. One instance of this happens in the beginning of Act II when Escalus urges Angelo to consider empathy when determining what he believes an appropriate sentence is for Claudio. Escalus says, “Or that the resolute acting of your blood could have attain'd the effect of your own purpose, whether you had not sometime in your life err'd in this point which now you censure him, and pull'd the law upon you” (2.1 13-17). This moment in the play is significant because Escalus believes that empathy should play a role in determining punishment. However, this scene also presents the counter argument; Angelo is in favor of empathy not being a factor in assigning punishment. Angelo believes that a certain crime should come with a set-in-stone punishment. He believes that if someone has sex with another woman during marriage, they should face death, with no exceptions. However, I disagree with Angelo because I believe that first time breakers of the law should be sentenced differently than returning breakers of the law, even if they were to commit the same crime. Since the criminal justice system is so much about laws that are put in place, I believe that we should make decisions with our head. Using our heart too much can result in making decisions with too much emotion involved, rather than using common sense. However, I do believe that empathy needs to play a role as it helps understand more of the point of view from the law breaker, as well as the situation as a whole.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteIn the play, empathy and judicial decision-making are in the spotlight as Claudio's life is essentially hanging by a thread. Angelo represents judicial decision-making, and decides to continue Claudio’s death sentence on the basis that he will not be biased and needs to punish the crime that he is witnessing. This, however, is an overreaction to the crime that Angelo is punishing, and there should be a middle ground between empathy and judicial decision-making that is not portrayed in the story. There should be an ability to punish crimes against the law, but also be able to preserve human empathy while doing so as to not become a cold-hearted government. The play attempts to show Angelo as being wrong in as a person because not only does his decision lack empathy, but he is also a corrupt judger when he attempts to persuade Isabella to have sex with him in exchange for saving her brother’s life. Additionally, Angelo happens to be punishing a crime that is shown to be both hard to track and therefore enforce, but also a crime that has not been this heavily punished in the past. There is also uncertainty in the play of whether or not Claudio has actually broken the law, but Angelo still continues with the punishment that the jury decides for Claudio. In Claudio’s specific case, there should be a middle ground between empathy and having the punishment fit the crime while also preserving justice and making correct judicial decisions. Making decisions with our heads is often the correct decision, but once in a while you should probably be listening to your heart to ensure that you do not become an unempathetic ruler that makes decisions only based on what is “right” or “wrong” in your society.
Within Shakespeare’s story of Measure for Measure, Shakespeare is able to deliver a message of unjustly like law enforcement when there are issues with upholding the law, who enforces it, and cruel punishment. With unjustly like law, this creates inequality for the people. We can first see this and get an understanding when Claudio had committed fornication with his soon to be wife which would end up having him on death row ready to be executed. This is an issue because later in the story we learn that there are other men who commit the same crime every day and are given a warning. We can see this when Escalus, one of the lords who uphold that law, and Pompey converse and Escalus says “There is pretty orders beginning, I can tell you. It is but heading and hanging.” Pompey “If you head and hang all that offend that way but for ten year together, you’ll be glad to five out a Vienna ten year, I’ll rent the fairest house in it after three pence a bay. If you live to see this come to pass, say Pompey told you so” (53) Escalus confronts Pompey about what could possibly be done to those who commit the crime and he seems to give a casual response how he’ll continue do continue his work. Escalus only threatens the Pompey of his doings lets him get off that time. This is one of the reasons why inequality is created. Men like Claudio are immediately put on death row while others are given a chance to prevent when they are doing, this perpetuates an unjustly like system not giving everybody the same and fair chances.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteIn the play, Measure for Measure, Shakespeare makes us question whether we believe empathy is a good thing when it comes to judicial decisions. He does this by showing both sides of the argument. For one, Isabella makes the point someone's situation can affect how they are acting. She tries to make Angelo think about what he would've done in Claudio's circumstance. More than likely Angelo would have acted the same way Claudio did. On the other hand, Angelo makes the point that if they let Claudio get away without punishment then others will think they can get away with it too. He argues that following through and executing Claudio might deter a whole future or crimes. Isabella is thinking with her heart and Angelo is thinking with his head. I would personally agree with Isabella in this instance because the way Angelo is thinking is unrealistic. We are all human and therefore we make mistakes and are influenced by things we can’t control. Anyone could’ve made the same decision that Claudio made therefore it’s not fair to punish him for it. Good middle ground would be to imprison Claudio for a length of time rather than to just kill him. At the end of the day, we don’t know if Claudio’s death would prevent others from making the same choice so what is the benefit to executing him? If we make decisions without using empathy then we start to lose a part of ourselves that makes us human. So we should always use empathy in our decision making and Claudio should be spared.
Stone Zashin
ReplyDeleteIn Measure for Measure, Shakespeare highlights the conflict on whether or not empathy should be apart of punishment decisions. In act 2, scene 2, we see an argument between Isabella and Angelo. On one side, Angelo believes that empathy is an unnecessary tool for decision-making as he is referred to as coldhearted and blunt as a leader. Angelo denies this judgment by stating, "I show it [pity] most of all when I show justice" (2.2.128). Secondly, we see Isabella fight hoping that Angelo will have more empathy when he partakes in making a decision, especially those in which life is held in the balance. I believe that empathy is vital and plays a massive role in our lives, but it shouldn't be so crucial in decision-making. I don't think the heart should play anything more than a minuscule role in decision-making. Empathy when it comes to deciding one's fate is more pity, and that isn't useful. In today's world, if all judges were empathetic and used that to make decisions, not many would be incarcerated, that sounds good at first, but we would lose all control of our country. Empathy is such an overvalued trait when it comes to decision making, not in other situations but in decision making 100 percent. I think Angelo is right, although he could understand his policies about how he lets empathy affect his decisions are why successes happened. To not be empathic is extremely hard as it makes you seem to the public as if you are the bad guy, but in hind site, most people aren't empathetic for the good of their respective communities in decision making. Overall, Shakespeare highlights an extraordinarily complex and highly debated topic, one that I believe sides in an unpopular way.