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?
Throughout the first few acts of Measure For Measure we see Angelo step into his role as a leader with an unflinching view on the law. In sentencing Claudio to death, he takes no note of extenuating circumstances and doesn’t subscribe to popular biases in Claudio’s favor. Technically, he is only being consistent, applying the law as it is written, but many characters tell him he should use empathy to make a better choice. By placing Angelo in such a negative light throughout the play, clearly displaying his hypocrisy and disrespect, Shakespeare and the play say that empathy is an important part of decision-making to create a good leader.
ReplyDeleteThe next decision for the reader is how much empathy is appropriate, and through characterization, Shakespeare shows a clear leaning towards an equal balance of using one’s head and heart. The play presents three characters that represent different levels of empathy in leadership. First, the Duke, who allows his empathy to step too far, never enforcing the law. Under his leadership, society has fallen into shambles with nobody respecting the law and many people suffering because of it. Next, we have Escalus, who is presented with a balance of empathy and the written law in his values. He is second in command under Angelo, so we haven’t yet seen how society would behave under him, but after Escalus’ very reasonable sentence in his trial, he is shown with the most respectful and wise behavior. The final level of empathy in a character is Angelo, who displays almost no empathy. He becomes quite detestable, being rude to Isabella and then attempting to proposition her, the exact crime he sentenced Claudio for. In my perception of these characters so far, Escalus definitely has the best leadership qualities and is overall the best person. I believe that this was intentional by Shakespeare, showing clearly that he agrees with the perspective of balance when it comes to empathy and written law.
I believe that empathy ought to be a factor in leadership, but similar to the perspective of this play, I also believe that it can’t be the only factor in making these difficult decisions. Realistically, most people have circumstances that led to a crime, what matters is the severity of these circumstances. You have to balance whether a punishment would help or hurt this person, and decide if they are a risk to society. To leave out empathy altogether makes your constituents mistrustful and more likely to commit crimes in a black market. Being harsh and unflinching won't prevent crime, it will just ensure that it's done in a more hidden and spiteful way. The goal of a leader should be to gain respect, not fear, and a balance of empathy and mindfulness will achieve that.
Shakespeare addresses the employment of empathy in judicial decision-making through three distinct characters: the Duke, who is extremely empathetic; Angelo, who lies on the other end of the spectrum with no empathy; and Escalus, who serves as the middle ground between the two extremes. The Duke himself acknowledges that, despite the harsh criminal code, they’ve failed to enforce the letter of the law, resulting in “decrees[] / Dead to infliction” (1.3.28-9). The Duke further admits his own fault in the matter, stating “we [I] have let [the laws] slip” (1.3.22). Presumably through his tendency to ‘excessively’ empathize with the violators of the law, the Duke fails to punish anyone, leading to an anarchical state. In his empathy, the Duke considers the circumstances of the event and chooses to be lenient. In harsh contrast, Angelo, in the same situation, refuses to budge, as he states, “When I that censure him do so offend, / Let mine own judgment pattern out my death, / And nothing come in partial” (2.1.31-3). Angelo explicitly refuses to consider the circumstances of Claudio’s ‘technical’ crime. In fact, through the phrase “[let] nothing come in partial,” Angelo forbids the consideration of circumstances, even of his own offense, instead opting to a strict literal interpretation of the legal statute. Presumably, Escalus would represent the ideal balance of empathy and the law in judicial settings. Yet, Shakespeare opts not to demonstrate the upside of an Escalus-esque approach to criminal justice; rather, Shakespeare opts to explore the detrimental effects of the two extremes: an overwhelming sense of empathy, and a complete lack thereof. While Escalus makes his opinion well-known in pleading Angelo to be lenient with Claudio, Escalus is otherwise a minor and rather irrelevant character. Quite ironically, Shakespeare renders insignificant the character best poised to preside over Vienna, instead illustrating the harsh contrast between the Duke and Lord Angelo.
ReplyDeleteThroughout Measure for Measure, the dichotomy between Duke Viniceto’s rule and Angelo’s rule is placed at the forefront of the play. While several characters argue that Angelo should be more empathetic towards his citizens, Angelo refuses in an attempt to create a strict and orderly state. By removing all sense of empathy, the law is viewed objectively—the law is simpler. However, the legal situations in Measure for Measure are unfair and probably do more harm than good for the order of the state. For example, the amount of social unrest that spawned after Claudio’s death sentence is extremely avoidable; by getting rid of the adultery law, the entire situation would have been avoided. However, that is not to say that Angelo should have been more “empathetic” to Claudio and Isabella after the conviction. Leniency in the law could very well have created more problems than actually arose from the situation.
ReplyDeleteWith that being said, the situation is ridiculous. There is no reason that Angelo should be sentenced to death for having sex with his fiance shortly before marriage. However, that is a fault of the law, not of Angelo. If lawmakers were more empathetic in the process of making laws, the ideal situation would occur. In this case, an objective judge can simply follow the empathetic law to ensure an ideal outcome in every situation.
Throughout the first few acts of Measure for Measure, Shakespeare reveals the controversy of empathy in the justice system. Angelo is very strict with the law and shows no empathy, a very different leadership style compared to Duke Viniceto’s. Many characters attempt to convince Angelo to show empathy and spare Claudio, but he remains in his belief for two reasons. By eliminating empathy in the justice system and enforcing the law, the law becomes objective and it sends a message that will reduce future crime.
ReplyDeleteThis controversy has a simple solution which can be revealed by thoroughly analysing the problem. The issue that this society is facing is that some people believe that the punishment for Claudio’s crime should be less than what it is and Angelo believes that the law should be upheld. The solution to this problem would be to change the law so that the punishment is whats best for society. The goal of the government is to do what is best for society, including the present and the future. This means that the rulers, if acting morally, should create laws that when enforced will give the best results. However, even if the government does what is best for society, the people may still be upset due to their emotions. This issue is however already resolved, because if the government is doing what is best for society, then it will weigh in the knowledge that some will get upset and will optimize the situation with this knowledge.
A second solution to this problem is to have the laws show empathy. Although laws are not conscious and cannot physically show empathy, the laws can be originally made to “be put in another’s shoes”. Laws can have clauses and exceptions for any number of situations, depending on what is morally correct, but as long as they are consistent than it would solve both issues presented in the controversy. However, there is a practicality issue with this solution, since there are far too many situations that can’t all be originally accounted for. The United States and a few other countries have adopted a Common Law system that mainly fixes this issue. The Common Law system allows Judges to create new rulings if a new situation arises, but it keeps its consistency through presidents, where once a similar situation has already been ruled on, the precedent can be used in the future rulings.
To answer the question about the justification of empathy in judgment, one must recall the purpose of the law. Humans make laws to protect general safety and ensure people's rights. Since humans are not perfect, rules are likely to have flaws. Going too extreme in either direction could result in a shift of purpose of the laws.
ReplyDeleteIn the play Measure for Measure, Duke uses extreme empathy when he judges people. As a result, he mentions, "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" (1.3.20-3). This result suggests because nobody commits a crime without a motive, you could always be empathetic about their situation. However, as Angelo mentions, "I show [pity] most of all when I show justice, / For then I pity those I do not know" (2.2.128-9). When the judge is empathetic about a serial killer who kills others because of their mental issue, the judge shows no mercy to those who were murdered and those the killer is about to kill. As I argued earlier, the laws protect people's safety and rights. Being too empathetic like Duke will fail that purpose.
Angelo, on the other hand, is the other extreme. He claims, "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). In Angelo's statement, he argues one of the ways laws protect the people is by scarring the criminals. A law never used will lose its terror towards people. However, most, if not all, criminals commit a crime under a motive that is more convincing than the punishment instead of plainly because they do not fear the rules. Claudio, for example, mentions the woman he commited adultery with "is fast [his] wife" (1.2.144). Under such conditions, he has not threatened public safety nor violated anyone's rights, and using the law against him defeats the purpose of the law.
Therefore, to protect the safety and rights of more people, the judge must possess a balance of empathy and strictness.
Much like the answer made obvious by the characters in Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure, the inclusion of empathy in judicial decision-making is not black or white. Empathy is objectively good in that it prevents restrictive-thought patterns. Empathy is good in the instance that it humanizes the person being charged. The constant struggle to maintain logical thinking and emotional thinking is what makes the job of a fair judge hard. The judge has to abide by the law, however must struggle with their own personal beliefs about the topic. In general, empathy is probably good as society easily falls into binaries that preclude the complex reasons for why some commit crimes. Measure by Measure seems to be arguing that objectivity should be preferred over empathy according to Angelo, but then is almost negated because of Angelo’s own actions.
ReplyDeleteDespite condemning fornucation, Angelo not only grapples with his own lustful thoughts but also engages with those desires with Isabela. When considering Angelo’s position as a judge/lawmaker, it seems unfortunate that the first person that Angelo condemns to enforce the law is Claudio, but the play makes it clear that someone has to be the first to come at fault. However, one could argue that Angelo is being sympathetic towards those who will suffer in the future and displaying a form of empathy. While Angelo does give into his desires, he acknowledges his wrongdoings. The soliloquy after Angelo first meets Isabella is almost an epiphany for Angelo. He hadn’t understood why men would commit crimes like fornucation stating,
“Subdues me quite. Ever till now.
When men were fond, I smiled and wondered how” (2.2.223-224).
However, despite gaining the emotional experience that could allow him to be more empathetic and understanding towards Claudio, he continues Claudio’s sentence. Angelo is grappling with both his head (enforcing the law for the good of the future people) and his heart (his new understanding about lust and love).
Finding a balance between both logical and empathetic thinking is the most “fair” form of judicial decision-making. I believe that Angelo should spare Claudio some empathy in that Claudio shouldn’t be sentenced to death. Even putting aside Angelo’s own actions, Claudio’s specific situation deserves consideration. However regardless of the situation Claudio has technically committed fornucation, but we can use our heart to deliver the most reasonable form of justice.
Throughout Measure for Measure, the dilemma of whether or not empathy should be applied to justice is debated front and center as the film revolves around two extremes. On one hand, is Angelo, a man who refuses to take empathy into account as he believes it unfair to the victim, stating, “I show it [pity] most of all when I show justice, / For then I pity those I do not know,"(2.2.128-9). However, these words are contradicted by Angelo's actions as he attempts to coerce Claudio's sister, Isabell, into having sex with him in return, promising to set Claudio free. On the other hand, Duke Vincentio shows how too much empathy can be problematic, as Angelo compared his legal system to a sleeping lion. Through these two characters, Shakespeare shows that the answer to whether empathy should be a part of justice, like many things, is not black or white instead, it is a different answer depending on who you ask.
ReplyDeleteI believe empathy should be used on a case-by-case, basis only being considered when extreme extenuating circumstances exist. This is because if empathy were always to be considered, no one would ever be charged with a crime, as there are always reasons behind a crime. Also, using empathy opens up the laws to inconsistencies, where some people are treated with more leniency than others. In Claudio's case, empathy should be applied as he and his fiancé were married in all senses, but the word, which I believe should be treated as a lesser crime compared to the one Angelo attempted to commit. Without empathy there would be no distinguishing the two crimes which is not right as they clearly vary in magnitude.
Shakespeare's play Measure for Measure presents an age-old question of decision making: do we base our choices off of morality or the consistency of law? At the start of the play, Lord Angelo is deputized to rule the city of Vienna during the Duke's absence. The new Lord responds to the city's legal infractions which run rampant. Claudio is caught in the crossfire of this transfer of power, and is sentenced to death for fornicating with his soon-to-be wife. His sister, Isabella, pleads that Angelo change his judgment on the matter due to the circumstances of Claudio's situation. However, Lord Angelo remains stagnant on his decision as Claudio's actions meet the legal definition of fornication. Shakespeare's conundrum makes us question the ethicality of Claudio's punishment for actions that were just barely a crime. The issue with empathetic reasoning is that it will impede on the impartiality of the law. It is not disputed that Claudio committed fornication. Therefore, if Claudio was to be released, why should another person guilty of fornication still be punished? Both Claudio and this hypothetical individual have committed the same actions as defined in law, and therefore must be punished equally - to treat the two differently would be unjust to the other. While their circumstances are different, the fact that they both did that action remains unchanged. As a result, considering empathy while adjudicating would destroy any form of legal consistency. Instead, far more thought is required when creating the legal boundaries of crimes. I would argue that creating laws uses a combination of fact and feeling as it requires both factual understanding of the crime as well as moral reasoning when it comes to the level of punishment.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn the Shakespearian play Measure for Measure the concept of empathy or the lack thereof is often intertwined with the judicial decisions made by the play's characters. Angelo is set on sentencing Claudio to death for the crime of fornication but his wise advisor, Escalus, tries to get Angelo to feel some sympathy for Angelo and spare him. Escalus tells Angelo that Claudio he would save Claudio because he had the “most noble father” (2.1 5-7) and asks Angelo if at some point in his life had he “erred in this point which now you censure him.” (2.1 15-17). He is requesting that Angelo try to have some empathy and put himself in the same position as Claudio and if the crime he committed seriously requires the death penalty. Later in the play it is revealed that Angelo wanted to have a relationship with a nun, who is unable to marry, which is almost certainly worse than the alleged crime Claudio has committed. In fact, Claudio and his fiance were basically married at this point but he was unable to make the payment necessary for their marriage. Despite all of this, Angelo is unable to feel empathy and requests Claudio be brought before him to be executed the next morning because he did technically break the law. Now Angelo is correct, Claudio did break the law and in those times breaking the law often called for execution, yet the question is if people enforcing the law should have empathy on a case by case basis. In the case of Claudio he was having a sexual relationship with someone who should’ve been his wife. Any rational person can agree that he doesn’t deserve the death penalty and it would take someone with empathy to understand his situation and do the right thing. I think the play is using the dire situation of Claudio to highlight the fact that the judicial systems of the world need people with empathy in them because every situation is different and don’t always deserve the punishments their crimes could carry. Each person and situation should be examined justly while also keeping the reasonings for the apparent situation in mind.
ReplyDeleteShakespeare’s play Measure for Measure emphasizes the value of empathy in judicial sentencing, by displaying Angelo’s uncompassionate methods and the suffering it causes for Claudio, Juliet, and Isabella.
ReplyDeleteAs the temporary ruler of Vienna in the Duke's absence Angelo quickly gains recognition for his strict enforcement of the law, advocating for the death penalty as valid punishment for the charge of fornication. He justifies this sentence by explaining that Claudio’s death will serve as a symbol incentivizing others not to break the same law. “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.” This assertion is strin and displays no sensitivity regarding Claudio’s wellbeing or the suffering his death will cause. Here Shakespeare outlines how Angelo’s methods are flawed, effectively supporting an alternative more empathetic approach. The narrative in opposition to Angelo continues with his depraved proposal to spare Isabella's brother, Claudio, from execution in exchange for her chastity. Angelo’s lack of rational negotiation and willingness to bend the law in his favor indicates a lack of genuine conviction in the morality of the punishments he ordered. Furthermore, his love for Isabella emphasizes his lack of empathy as a ruler. Even after Angelo falls in love with Isabella, he’s unwilling to extend a similar understanding to Claudio, who acted out of love, which displays an absence of compassion. In this scenario, one might expect Angelo’s personal experience to allow him to display compassion for Claudio’s predicament. He does not care for circumstances regarding how close Claudio and Juliet were, which in a just system ought to impact the punishment of the case. The emphasis on Angelo’s improper process, which lacks depth, due diligence, and compassion, helps further Shakespeare’s mission for empathy in the justice system. The portrayal of the detriments brought upon the main cast by this harsh ruling pushes the narrative as well. The death sentence imposed by Angelo leaves Juliet as a devastated single mother, while Isabella is nearly coerced into compromising her religious devotion. “To whom should I complain? Did I tell this, who would believe me? O, perilous mouths, that bear in them one and the selfsame tongue, either of condemnation or approof, bidding the law make curtsy to their will, hooking both right and wrong to th’ appetite” Isabella’s emotional turmoil from Angelo’s bribe even prompts her to believe Claudio’s death could even be her own fault, as if she’s forced to make this decision to forfeit her faith or her brother, “Then, Isabel, live chaste, and, brother, die. More than our brother is our chastity.” Shakespeare’s focuses on how truly distraught Isabella is to accentuate the negative effect of an uncompassionate court system, and serves as a call to action for empathetic ruling. In summary, Measure for Measure serves as a powerful message of the consequences of ruling without empathy, urging the audience to acknowledge the necessity of compassion in the administration of justice.
The play established the stark differences between the three judges: Angelo, Escalus, and Duke Vincentio, to highlight a spectrum of how the law should be applied and enforced. Shakespeare emphasizes Angelo's cutthroat approach as cold and heartless, while deeming the Duke's methods to be too soft and ineffective. Escalus is clearly set up to be the better option because he applies wisdom and empathy as he decides on a consequence that is proportional to the crime committed.
ReplyDeleteI personally would like to argue that Angelo's stance is the most logical because it is consistent. Without looking at any extenuating circumstances, and applying what is set in stone as the repercussions to the actions committed, you establish an understanding between yourself, the law, and your constituents. However, I do believe that the law itself is flawed. It is unreasonable to say that the courts should frame legislation around certain obscure nonviolent moral issues. Clearly most of society disagrees with the law itself. I would moderately disagree with the scale that he wants to not "make a scarecrow of the law, setting it up to fear birds of prey, and let it keep one shape till custom make it their perch and not their terror" (act 2 scene 1). Realistically, in an example of murder, I would hope that the consequence is enough to incentivize people to not engage in it. If no one was punished for killing someone they dislike, then I would like to think that a lot less murder would occur. Therefore the problem is not with how Angelo is enforcing the law, but there is an issue with how their legislative system works. They need laws that reflect what their people believe.
I think Shakespeare is leading us to like Escalus's stance, but I could also see him wanting to soften the heart of Angelo and achieve a middle ground between the two of them. I would prefer the latter.
To limit bias, I would prefer a system like Angelo's. Who is to say that just because you were almost married, you have more of a right to engage in fornication more than someone who paid for it? I think the middle ground of Escalus creates more issues than the Angelo application of the law. When you allow the law to be malleable, it can be manipulated by the judge who is applying it case by case.
The primary question that “Measure for Measure” aims to answer, through its characters Angelo and Isabella, is whether moral and legal decisions should be guided by rationality or empathy. Angelo, appointed to enforce Vienna’s strict moral laws, represents the fully emotionally detached approach to justice. His stance values the broader societal impact of law enforcement over any individual circumstances. By prioritizing the collective welfare and deterrence of future crime, Angelo’s goal is to ensure fairness and equality in judicial decision-making. This philosophy is ultimately utilitarian in nature, valuing the pure end regardless of the means and prioritizing the greatest good for the greatest number. Conversely, Isabella’s plea for her brother Claudio, who is sentenced to death by Angelo for fornication, reveals the empathetic approach to justice. Her argument is that Angelo should empathize with her brother’s situation because empathy and understanding mitigate individual suffering. Isabella’s basic idea is that empathy allows for a deeper understanding of the human condition, making a more equitable form of justice.
ReplyDeleteWhile Yale psychologist Paul Bloom argues against empathy as a basis for ethical decision-making, saying it can be biased and myopic, “Measure for Measure” presents an alternative case. The play does not definitively resolve the debate between rationality and empathy in judicial decision-making, instead presenting a nuanced interaction between the two approaches: neither perspective alone is sufficient. Angelo’s lack of empathy leads him to a cold, rigid, and unforgiving application of the law, while Isabella’s appeal to empathy creates the potential for weak enforcement and mercy over justice. Shakespeare advocates for a middle ground, suggesting that the most just form of justice incorporates both rationality and empathy. Laws are important, and they serve a central societal role; still, there are unique circumstances for individuals and the potential for reform and forgiveness. This approach ensures that justice is not only fair and deterrent but also compassionate and understanding.