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?
In the play, the law is seen as very important and strict. If you are to break the law, then you must be punished properly and there is no exception. This shows that in this world the law is seen and used with no empathy. I think that we should make decisions with both our heads and hearts. We cannot make decisions purely on what we think is the right thing, we have to think logically. In the play, I think that they should use the law and punish people, but not always give them the maximum sentence. For example, Claudio should not be killed for his actions but given a lesser punishment, so the law could still be seen as being upheld. If we never have empathy then we would always just do what the law says and probably cause a lot of unneeded harm. I think in the play, I am more on Claudio’s side than Angelo’s. I do not think he should be killed for having sex with his fiancĂ©e and getting her pregnant, I think that is much too extreme. I understand if their society thinks that an act like that should be punished, but I think they should figure out a lesser punishment for him. I think morally Claudio and Isabella are correct, but I guess by law, Angelo is correct. I think that it is hard to balance and figure out when to use our heads and hearts for certain decisions which is why they are difficult sometimes. It is important that we do use both however and not to exclusively use one.
ReplyDeleteThe play has opened with a hardline stance on justice in the form of Angelo, but has gradually chipped away at it with Isabella. While it is not the centerpiece of justice, empathy is critical in our interpretation of the law. Considering Claudio's circumstance, the penalty of death for fornication (Completely consensual, nearly legal fornication at that) seems outrageous. In this example, it would be outrageous not to consider Claudio's situation when delivering a just punishment. Conversely, there are cases where empathy should not be used. To Angelo's point, law's become meaningless if they are not enforced. There are many real world examples of this, such as the high rate of minor crimes in Seattle due to police defunding. If law's are not enforced, people will break them. However, there needs to be a middle ground where empathy is used alongside justice. Every case has special circumstances that need to be considered. Certain cases may require more empathy and others, while some may require none. Based on what we have seen from the play so far, it seems that Shakespeare would say that empathy is required to administer justice. This is based on Angelo's contradictions in his enforcement of the law. While he claims to be unyielding in his enforcement of the law, he is unable to abide by the very legislation he enforces. This is a glaring flaw in his character that seems to mirror his ideology.
ReplyDeleteThe law is thought of set in stone. It should be universal. Not bent or twisted. The different rulers have different versions of enforcing the law in Measure for Measure. The Duke tends to look the other way, not enforcing them. This makes them practically pointless. Angelo notes this and at first is very strict until his feelings and desires come into play. He begins to ignore what is written and follow his heart, Isabella. He is no longer treating everyone just and equal. Instead, he is picking a choice that will benefit him, not the community. However, if people only followed the law and never tried to actually paused to think about them, perhaps they would never change and fornication would still deserve a punishment nevertheless the death penalty. There should be a standard of repercussions but empathy needs to play a role in making them just after that. Empathy and the law should not be allowed to pick favorites but it should look at all aspects of the case. In Claudio’s cases, Angelo should take into account that there is only one thing that has not been completed in the process to his marriage to Juliet. Additionally, it hard to find equivalents when it comes to wrongdoings and their appropriate punishments or even bribes. Angelo decides it is ok for him and Isabella to break the law to excuse Claudio, even if they are committing the same “crime.” Who is to say fornication deserves death? Does Angelo really understand what he is doing or is he too focused on the type of leader he appears to the public?
ReplyDeleteAt first, it appears that many of Shakespeare's characters in Measure for Measure are unsympathetic, making it difficult for an audience to empathize with any of their situations. The characters roles are symbolic in the general portrayal of real and imaginary social themes of law, morality, and justice. Despite the fact that no character appears to be completely compassionate, the emotional strain imposed on the characters allows even the most callous characters, such as Angelo, to exhibit a sense of morality and feeling of compassion. The Duke can be thought of as the puppet master in this play, which makes it easier to manipulate the other characters to show specific ethics. When the Duke is introduced in Act One Scene One, the audience learns about his current role in society and his plans to put authority on someone else in order to restore peace and morality to Vienna, "Hold therefore, Angelo, In our remove be thou at full ourself, mortality and mercy in Vienna, Live in thy tongue and heart." The Duke plans his resignation from power for a valid reason: he is unable to restore law and order on his own, which may explain why he is such an empathetic and moral individual. While the Duke's empathy for the desire to restore order to his territory, he finds that his replacement, Angelo, is a profoundly unpleasant figure who leads Claudio and Lucio. Angelo, who is described as "a man of stricture and firm abstinence," questions the Duke's actions. The Duke is originally depicted in Measure for Measure as someone who wants to do what is best for his people and believes that the best way to restore order is to retreat fast, leaving Angelo as a deputy for an unknown period of time.
ReplyDeleteEmpathy is not fair but the world is not fair. Life is so short and the impacts we leave on others affect them more than we will know or understand and that’s why empathy is so important. We never truly know what another person is going through and that’s why the kindest thing that we can do is provide empathy to others. I agree it is not fair to make sentences/decisions based on empathy but nothing in the world is really fair. Systems are rigged and so many social norms are not fair and we end up marginalizing groups without knowing it all the time. That’s why I think it’s okay to use empathy in making those decisions because we are all human in the end and not perfect. In addition to that, it also isn’t fair because depending on who it is you are asking for empathy they will understand or not. You just have to hope for the best. There are always two sides to a story and contradictory to them not understanding your empathy you could not be understanding theirs. Empathy is a very complicated word and affects people in so many different ways but at the end of the day, it makes an individual’s life better knowing that someone is there for them, regardless of their mistakes. In Measure for Measure, we see these complex ideas and actions by the people surrounding the prison and law system and it differs on different individuals based on their actions. For example, Isabella has empathy for her brother because he understands him and he is family; taking those into consideration she will have his back no matter what. The guard that tries raping her does not understand that or care. He doesn’t use his power of empathy to help them out.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to empathy and judicial decision-making, the play, especially Angelo, has a lot to say. Angelo firmly believes that, although not strongly enforced before, the law is the law. Angelo feels that empathy has no role in judicial decision-making, and makes this very clear when debating the fate of Claudio with Escalus, saying, “Let mine own judgement pattern out my death,/ And nothing come in partial. Sir, he must die” (2.1. 32-33). This attitude towards the law is what drives Angelo in terms of ruling Vienna, and sentencing Claudio to death. He feels there should be no empathy in the law as it is not right to incorporate our own feelings into judicial decision-making. This approach to law is questioned by many, as many in the play giving Claudio the death penalty for fornication is simply too much. The law had been broken by many before, making this sentence unnecessary. However, there are many characters who look to the empathy side of decision-making, like Escalus and Isabella. Escalus tries to plead with Angelo by telling him to put himself into Claudio’s shoes and not sentence him to death. Isabella pleads with Angelo by saying very similar things to Angelo as Escalus, and further emphasizes on finding it in his heart to not be so harsh. The play, so far, creates arguments for whether or not empathy should be used, highlighting the challenges and moral issues faced in the criminal justice system. These moral issues are what build the play and drives it forward, forcing the audience to weigh each side to see which is the more morally right thing to do.
ReplyDeletePaul Bloom's stance on empathy is that it is not helpful for ethical decision making brings to light how our emotions can influence our choices and may cloud our judgement especially in the midst of making important, influential decisions. However, with no empathy it is very easy to detach oneself from a situation and perhaps be too harsh or cold as Angelo is critisized for in Measure for Measure. Angelo argues that by enforcing the law and punishing offenders, that is his way of showing his pity and empathy for without it, who knows who else may suffer. Though Angelo makes a fair point, Isabella questions him about how it would feel if he were the one on the side of the perpetrator and how he would want to be treated and what punishment would be deemed fair. I think Isabella makes a good argument and one that is used frequently. By showing no empathy towards the perpetrator, you are not only detaching from the situation, but it can lead to detaching the humanity from the person who is convicted of the crime. If we want to have a more just, educated, and caring society, we must show empathy to recieve it in return. It is important for people such as judges however, to be very emotionally rational and in full control of their emotions and actions to ensure they do not let them trigger strong feelings and act out of immediate, irrational emotions rather than level headed, yet understanding, empathetic, and in pursuit of justice.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the play Measure for Measure is making an argument for empathy to be considered when discussing justice. Despite having the word “angel” in his name, Angelo is portrayed as the villain in this play (at least in my eyes). The majority of the characters are against him and his very strict ways, and he also ends up regretting his decision of putting Claudio to death for his actions later. Angelo’s way of dealing with the law is by ignoring the value and importance of empathy and simply looking at the facts of a case. Doing so has the potential to negatively impact the lives of many people including Claudio and those who care about him. Though it does seem like the logical and more objective thing to do at times, completely ignoring the people that will be affected by a severe punishment like Claudio’s is not something that should be done with more minor cases like fornication. While begging Angelo to reconsider her brother’s punishment, Isabella states, “Go to your bosom, Knock there, and ask your heart what it doth know that’s like my brother’s fault. If it confess a natural guiltiness such as is his, Let it not sound a thought upon your tongue against my brother’s life” (Shakespeare 2.2 166-171). Isabella is begging Angelo to have some empathy for her brother. By isolating Angelo’s strict “no nonsense” policy and showing the unfairness of it, Measure for Measure is showing the importance of empathy in the criminal justice system and in general.
ReplyDelete“Let mine own judgment pattern out my death,/ And nothing come in partial. Sir, he must die” (2.1. 32-33). The play, Measure for Measure, presents two sides to the argument of whether or not empathy should play a part in judicial decision-making; however, Angelo contradicts his own principle-based premises by trying to persuade Isabella into committing the very act that he condemns. The Duke calls Angelo into power because he thinks he rules too softly… too empathetically. The case of Claudio puts these opposing viewpoints into moral combat, and Isabella brings it all crashing down. Angelo pretends as if there is no point in having laws if they are not equally enforced. He thinks Claudio should be killed for participating in the act of fornication. The Duke and Escalus believe that Angelo is too harsh and should look further into the crime and “criminal” to show that he is a good person who simply made a mistake, one that Angelo could have made himself in an alternate reality. Angelo’s temptation and weakness for Isabella prove their theory correct. He doesn’t seem to have perspective on his own faults; however, this is the reason that judicial decision-making cannot operate without empathy. Angelo fails to see the issue with the law and fails to bend it to make the truly right decision. He claims that laws become meaningless if they are not enforced, but he fails to enforce it upon himself. His heart acts one way and his head opposite. It is completely wrong to ignore the law for himself and refuse to see the same reasoning in Claudio’s case. Judicial decision-making affects everyone whether directly or not, but in every case, it is important to examine the details and form a fair punishment that balances empathy and principle.
ReplyDeleteIn the play, Angelo’s unempathetic way of enforcing the law leads to Claudio receiving the death sentence. The verdict Claudio is given is based on a technicality of not having his dowry sorted. The book criticizes Angelo’s coldness by painting him as a tyrannical leader. The main example of this is when he tries to hold Claudio’s life over Isabella’s head to get what he wants. The author uses this to associate unfeelingness with corruption. On the other hand, the Duke who is also a form of judge in the story is much more empathetic. He believes that Claudio should be pardoned. In a similar sense to how Angelo is painted as tyrannical, the Duke is painted as a holy person. It seems intentional that the Duke dresses up as a Friar and stays in that disguise for most of the story. I agree with how the play depicts empathy. I think that it is important to have empathy when making judgements. I feel like over the years having empathy in the court room have led to things like rehabilitation programs for non-violent offenders. Mandatory minimum sentencing for non-violent crimes is an unempathetic form of justice. When someone receives a mandatory minimum sentence, their situation is not considered. Even though empathy is very important, justice should live in a middle ground. A system where humans consider all of the facts and apply logic as a feeling human. A system that is similar to how the Duke makes his judgement of Claudio but dissimilar to Angelo’s harsh judgement.
ReplyDeleteThe play has many different viewpoints on empathy and judicial-decision making. On one hand, there is Lord Angelo who firmly believes there are laws for a reason which is why they must be followed, and on the other there are individuals such as Isabella who believes that one should take in consideration others’ circumstances. Under Lord Angelo’s rule, the play displays strict rule following when it comes to the following the law. When coversing with Escalus about decision-making Angelo states, “‘Tis one thing to be tempted, Escalus/Another thing to fall.”(2.2.18-19). In this quote Angelo clarifies that it is one thing to be tempted to break the law and tempted to commit a crime, however it is a completely different thing when one actually breaks the law and commits a crime. From the opposing view point Isabella states, “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 explains that if Angelo was in Cluadio’s position himself he would have broken the law as well. Isabella fights for her brother as she understands why he broke the law and committed a crime. From reading about individuals on two opposite ends on the empathy argument, I do not believe that there is currently a middle ground, however I believe that there should be; one in which empathy is used to consider each and every aspect of a case. I believe that by doing so others can be punished fairly.
ReplyDeleteThrough the course of Measure for Measure, it seems apparent that laws are not always themselves just; the case of Claudio and Juliet is a more complex situation than Vienna's law against fornication was originally intended to combat, with them in effect already wed. Further, such laws against fornication seem completely arbitrary, not based on logic but on the assumption that religion presents an objective moral code and that it is the duty of the state to force its citizens to adhere to those rules. Therefore, it seems that empathy must be employed as a tool to guide when laws are to be applied and to what extent punishment must be inflicted.
ReplyDeleteThough the deputy Angelo does have a point in that if we are to have empathy for society as a whole, some criminals must be deterred from committing crimes; we cannot simply let murderers roam free because we feel guilty about treating them otherwise. Additionally, Angelo makes the apparently valid point that we cannot excuse immoral action simply because hypocrisy exists among those who enforce the law, the law ought still be generally followed (e.g. a judge being a murderer does not excuse the act of murder). Therefore, alongside empathy we must also ask whether or not pardoning someone who has broken the law is a danger to society as a whole, and thus employ a degree of reason to our judgement, weighing our empathy for the criminal against our empathy for society as a whole. In the case presented in the play, Claudio is not being punished for doing anything harmful to others or society as a whole, but for engaging in the human condition, making his situation totally incomparable to that of a murderous judge, as any rational person might have made his same choices. As such, there is no reason that he should be punished, let alone executed.
While the play makes points from both sides, for and against empathy’s importance, the play is emphasizing a position leaning towards empathy. The play takes place centering on Angelo being extremely strict with his following of the law, demonstrating a clear lack of empathy. In this way, Angelo and his ideas are the “villain” of the play, placing his mindset on judicial-decision making through a critical lens while the rest of the characters try to change his mind. There is some middle ground though, as the play can seem like it hyper focuses on shining a positive light on empathy. However, Angelo as a character like any well-written villain stands on his ideas, which lack empathy. Angelo makes his points toward his more objective point of view such as his monologue saying, “You may not so extenuate his offence for I have had such faults; but rather tell me, when I, that censure him, do so offend, let mine own judgment pattern out my death, and nothing come in partial.” (2.1.28-33) Here Angelo makes a strong and persuasive argument that empathy is a form of bias, and that if even he made a similar choice to Claudio, he would ask for the same fate out of the objectivity of his wrongdoing. However, for the most part the play focuses on contradicting his established his unsympathetic nature with characters pleading their case to spare Claudio. While the play places a lack of empathy as the villain of the play, it also features a middle ground somewhere in between of empathy and objectivity, with a small lean towards empathy.
ReplyDeleteEmpathy plays a critical role in the play, Measure for Measure, and it is demonstrated, or lack thereof, from two characters acting as judges in Shakespeare's work. Angelo rules with discipline and principal. When he sentences Claudio to death because of his crime of fornication, ignoring the special circumstance that Claudio and Juliet were fiancees and handfasted, he shows no empathy or remorse. Following Vienna's laws are extremely crucial to him, to which he tells Isabella that, "Your brother is a forfeit of the law, and you but waste your words." (2.2.94-95) Angelo's judicial-decision making of Claudio's fate shows the reader what little empathy and leniency he has. Angelo claims that he must be cruel in order to make an example of Claudio for the citizens of Vienna, but instead it makes him look foolish for not understanding that Claudio and Juliet were practically married! On the other hand, Escalus bestows judgment in a different manner. During the trial with Elbow, Pompey, and Froth, Escalus is more flexible and understanding towards each individual's situation. For example, Escalus lets Pompey off with a warning after his crime of being a Bawd by saying, "I advise you not let me not find you before me again upon any complaint whatsoever...So, for this time, Pompey, fare you well." (2.2.252-259). In all, Escalus takes the time to hear their stories and is empathetic for these men. He doesn't respond with violence, as Angelo does, but with empathy. Analyzing the way these two judges carry out the law really reveals how important it is to have a balance between being empathetic and principled, while taking into account extenuating circumstances.
ReplyDeleteThe law and judicial system has an interesting role in Measure for Measure. Traditionally, the law in general, is seen as black and white. There are two options, guilty or non-guilty. Did you or did you not break the law? As we see in the play, the role of the judicial system begins to be less and less black and white and more and more grey. The Duke shows to us that he does not care a whole lot, and enforces the laws extremely lightly, if even at all. Angelo is extremely strict when it comes to the laws and believes that the laws and the whole system was black and white. In Angelo’s eyes, there was no grey are or empathy, he strictly looked at what the law is and did you or did you not break it. I believe that empathy should definitely be considered when making a ruling, but it should not overrule the true question of what is wrong and what is right. Empathy should be taken into consideration to help with the sentence in certain circumstances such as if the person on trial has a criminal background or if the crime could somehow be considered justifiable. In the play, the Duke and Escalus believe that Angelo is being too harsh with his total black and white vision, and that he needs more empathy when making a decision. The Duke on the other hand, is easily persuaded and possibly has too much empathy during the play.
ReplyDeleteMeasure for Measure demonstrates a dynamic between both empathy and by-the-books thinking and how it relates to the practice of law and order. Both have their benefits, but both also have their detriments. All Measure for Measure explains is that both Angelo and the Duke are wrong yet right, since there are 2 approaches to law; you can weigh legal issues using empathy, or you can take the "blind justice" approach. Personally, I believe justice should be blind, but not completely. Empathy allows for a change in perspective, and perhaps a change in sentencing. In certain scenarios, this seems ideal: a thief who stole bread because his family was starving could be given a lighter sentence since it's understandable as to why they stole in the first place. However, ignoring empathy in a court of law is more useful in a scenario where law needs to be uniform and tight. Different judges have different levels of empathy and patience, and a broken judicial system starts with inconsistencies at the court level. If you're able to go to multiple courts and have different results at each of them, it demonstrates a failure of the institution. Justice should be blind, and I think it's impossible to create a middle ground. If you allow for some empathy, then who is there to dictate how much is too much? It's impossible to regulate empathy, which is why a by-the-books attitude towards law is universally better, even if it's objectively crueler. However, if choices are made at the highest level of law, then I believe empathy is the most important thing there. The higher ups should be able to use empathy in a court case, but the lower judges should follow the law word for word in order to keep everything as collected as possible.
ReplyDelete