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?
Prompts: What is the play saying about empathy and judicial decision-making? What do you think about this controversy?
ReplyDeleteAlthough in Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure, Lord Angelo utilizes the law for making an example of someone, the law should instead be used to deter others and heal people in a humane way. Law systems exist in many societies for good reasons, but those in charge often subject their victims to cruel and unusual punishment from much more nuanced issues. Instead, law systems should be used as a way to scold while understanding the humanity of the Lord Angelo believes he is doing that when he stated "I show it [pity] most of all when I show justice, / For then I pity those I do not know," (2.2.128-9) but he instead insists on using a criminal of a minor offence, Claudio, as an example by executing him. Although he is scaring people away and therefore reducing future offenses, fear is not a productive tool for creating a healthy and obedient society. Instead, others suggest using mercy as a tool to give others a second chance to not make the same mistake. Due to the trivial and insignificant nature of Claudio’s execution, his sister, Isabella, hopes that Lord Angelo will use the moment as a learning experience by “Condemn[ing] the fault, and not the actor of it” (2.2, 53). Although she likely believes Claudio didn’t commit a crime in concept, she generally implies that criminals should be given another chance, especially if their crimes are due to their delinquency or risky behavior. If the perpetrator is intentionally causing harm, then they can have slightly higher consequences or assistance in rehabilitation, but people can stay functioning members of society if they have one more chance to avoid harmful behaviors. Systems of law are still important, explained as Isabella states “O it is excellent / To have a giant’s strength, but it is tyrannous / To use it like a giant” (2.2, 134-137). However, using a large amount of strength for pushing people around like a giant without first understanding how to stop reoffenders doesn’t contribute to a healthy society. Instead, having mercy and seeing people’s true intentions often lead to better outcomes for leaders and their people.
Measure for Measure doesn’t dismiss empathy entirely nor does it entirely embrace it but instead critiques its limitations when used without reason. Shakespeare seems to suggest that rational and logical decision-making should balance both the head and the heart, but leaning too far in either direction leads to injustice. This is clear through the polarity of Angelo’s cold rationality and Isabella’s passionate plea representing the two extremes, and the play exposes the advantages and pitfalls of both.
ReplyDeleteAngelo’s argument that justice requires pity for those “I do not know” (2.2.128-9) highlights an important truth: the law exists to protect society as a whole, not just individuals. His strict enforcement of the law might deter future crime, but it also disregards context and humanity. By ignoring Claudio’s circumstances—his marriage delayed by technicalities—Angelo’s “justice” becomes borderline cruelty. Shakespeare critiques this lack of empathy through Isabella’s challenge: “If he had been as you, and you as he, / You would have slipped like him” (2.2.86). Her words oppose the nature of Angelo’s argument and insteads gives understanding to the human tendency to make errors, making empathy vital in understanding the consequences of our judgments to the individual themselves.
However, Isabella’s argument alone isn’t a solution. Empathy can lead to bias, favoring those whose suffering we see while ignoring the broader society or those who aren’t in the spotlight. Angelo rightly points out that unchecked empathy risks undermining the law’s purpose which could lead to worse consequences down the road then not enforcing it. The polarity of Isabella’s and Angelo’s argument suggests a middle ground: empathy must influence justice, but it should not dictate it. Empathy helps us see the human aspects of the decisions while justice ensures fairness and consistency.
Ultimately, the play reveals that both empathy and reason are essential tools for ethical decision-making, but they must work in harmony. The question isn’t whether empathy is overrated but how it should be applied alongside rational judgment to create a just society.
ReplyDeleteIn Measure for Measure, the most highlighted theme is the hypocrisy within a lack of empathy. This is obvious through Angelo’s ruling style and eventual fall to temptation regarding Isabella. On page 39, Escalus urges Angelo to show mercy to Claudio for having premarital sex and not put him to death. “Could have attained th’ effect of your purpose, Whether you had not sometime in your life, Erred in this point which now you censure him, And pulled the law upon you” (Escalsus 39). In his argument, he calls for Angelo to look at the situation in his shoes. He hints that it could be easy for Angelo also to fall victim to his lust and have premarital sex, and to take mercy on Claudio because of that fact. Angelo responds to Escalus saying, “Tis one thing to be tempted, Escalus, Another thing to fall”. Though Angelo is invited to seek empathy and show mercy, he declines. He makes a judgment on Claudio because he decided to act on his lust, and Angelo has not.
This point later proves to be quite hypocritical considering his later actions with Claudio’s sister Isabella. After Isabella has continuously visited him to beg for his mercy, he realizes he has fallen in love with her. He says, “Ever till now when men were fond, I smiled and wondered how” (71). This line indicates that though he once misunderstood being infatuated with a person, now that he is going through it himself he understands. He now has the empathy he once lacked. Claudio’s hypocrisy shines through as he goes from the tempted to the fallen when he asks to take Isabella’s virginity.
In conclusion, Angelo’s lack of empathy and his eventual hypocrisy highlight the play’s theme of how judgment without compassion will always lead to personal failure.
Prompt: What is the play saying about judicial decision making and empathy? Should we make decisions with our heads or our hearts?
ReplyDeleteIn the context of the play, it is trying to paint the picture of law overruling morals. The play creates the dilemma on what is too far for the law to extend its power to. Overall we see clashing tensions from characters like Isabella who present empathy with the use of religion and comparing Angelo with Claudio.
“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).
With this evidence we can see how the play tries to show a convincing image of how empathy could be used in the justice system and the opportunities for governmental improvement with these methods of empathy. Angelo replies to acts of empathy by defending himself and the judicial decision making process
"I show it most of all when I show justice,
For then I pity those I do not know,
Which a dismissed offense would after gall,
And do him right that, answering one foul wrong,
Lives not to act another. Be satisfied; …”(2.2.128-30).
With this excerpt we can see how the play also shows the perspective of a lawmaker like Angelo and how by preventing one instance of fornicating, he will be able to stop future occurrences of it from happening. What Angelo is basically saying here is that the law must stand firm in order to prevent further wrong from being created. Empathy won’t work because it won’t create a pure society for them to live and with justice being utilized they can create a safer Vienna free from fornication. Angelo believes that he is doing Isabella and the Vienna people a favor by getting rid of this foul wrong.
By analyzing these two quotes it is obvious that we should make decisions with our heads. If all humans were to act on their hearts/emotions there would be no civilization or order. Acting on emotions creates instability and regret. In order for there to be a society we need to work together with our minds and incorporate aspects of laws, structure and governance with the intention of these laws not being broken in the future. In short, the law is the law and we have these rules in place to create a better society for everyone around.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn Shakespeare’s comedy Measure for Measure, the Bard asserts that contrary to Angelo’s dogged and cold willingness to interpret the law verbatim for all offenders, determining proper legal and punitive action necessitates rigorous case-by-case analysis and natural empathy. When Isabella first speaks with Angelo, he refutes her plea for clemency, contending that “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” (MM 2.2.104-107). The primary component of Angelo’s rhetoric is that the law must be impartial, even to his closest friends and most beloved family. His perspective is the typical idealization of an austere and unfeeling justice system that does not account for anything besides the crime and subsequent punishment. First, such a version of the law is impossible since humans must execute it, and second, ascertaining the correct course of action is unachievable without considering the circumstances of an infraction. Angelo’s logic produces a mechanical state that renders a parent thieving a scrap of bread for their children equivalent to an armed robber stealing for personal gain. Isabella then rebukes the duke’s substitute with a fusillade of compelling rationale:
ReplyDeleteISABELLA. Tomorrow? O, that’s sudden! Spare him, spare him.
He’s not prepared for death. Even for our kitchens
We kill the fowl of season. Shall we serve heaven
With less respect than we do minister
To our gross selves? (MM 2.2.108-112)
Isabella juxtaposes the haste with which Angelo expedites Claudio’s death with the care taken to slaughter fowl at the proper time, additionally noting the eternal effect of death on heaven. Her plea relating avians to humankind is strikingly reminiscent of the Gospel of Matthew: “Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?” (New International Version, Matt. 6:26). With allusions to the spiritual aspect of capital punishment, Isabella successfully argues that humans cannot subject their brothers and sisters so callously to the law as one would address simple-minded birds. Rather like mercy, empathy is not unduly glorified. As in Measure for Measure, empathy is a just sentiment indicative of innate human altruism.
As shown in the play Measure For Measure, the ideal system of government uses neither only hard and strict laws nor only feelings, but a combination of both to enact justice on criminals. In the play, Claudio is sentenced to death for fornication with Juliet who he was engaged with. Furthermore, Claudio had completed nearly every step to get married, yet the singular and miniscule act that he did miss caused him to receive a death sentence. This is why an amount of tolerance within the law must be given to prevent those who by a technicality would be punished, when in reality situations are often more nuanced. The premier version of this would be a system that gives power to feelings of empathy from a set group of people such as a jury. However, empathy and emotion should not be allowed to have more power than the law because as Angelo states, “Most dangerous/ Is that temptation that doth goad us on/ To sin in loving virtue” (2.2.218-220). This is to say that if one is to use only their emotions as a guide for punishment then, depending on the relationship between those people, one might compromise their morals and give an unjustly merciful sentence. This does not only occur with feelings of fondness, but also feelings of hate. Because if someone particularly despises a certain person for reasons outside of the conditions of their detainment, then a sentence that is too harsh can occur.
ReplyDeleteThe Shakespearean play, Measure for Measure, highlights the corruptibility and cruelty possible in a justice system that is entirely absent morality. The play depicts Angelo, the ridiculously harsh authority relying on the death penalty as a means of atonement for a man who consummated his marriage just a tad early. The arrested man, Claudio, was fortunate to have his sister, Isabel, come before Angelo and lay out an argument based on empathy. Specifically, she says 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). This argument, which is already quite compelling, is proven to be true later in the play when Angelo makes advances on Isabel. Demanding sex from Isabel in order for her to pardon her brother from death is far more immoral than Claudio consummating his marriage early. Angelo, realizing that his argument for death was crumbling before him, presents the feeble response that his pity is towards all those who are spared from heinous act. His argument serves as a declaration of deterrence through discipline which he claims protects the rest of Vienna from crime. The issue with this argument is that fornication truly is a victimless crime. As always, a middle ground does exist for both arguments to be true. Yes, one could make the argument that locking up murders and arsonists is empathetic towards the victims that those crimes impact, but that empathy and protecting society are inherently present by enforcing the max sentence on all infractions. Because their is no innocent party who is harmed by premarital fornication, the argument for empathy does not properly function. On the topic of a middle ground, I do not believe that middle ground means occasionally prioritizing empathy. I believe that it means maximizing empathy for all innocent and guilty parties. Murderers and thieves must be tried in order to A) deter future criminals, but also B) ensure their is some comeuppance to satiate the natural justice that rightfully impends upon them. However, in truly victimless crimes where no innocent third party is harmed, empathy should still be maximized. The difference is that the empathy goes toward the criminal instead of the victim in the absence of a victim. I believe that the criminal of a crime where there is truly no one else is harmed is the victim themself. That being said, I do have a very high moral threshold for determining a victimless crime. For example, piracy does have a legitimate victim as the artist and companies responsible for producing it lose out on vital revenue needed for the continuation of their project. I think the controversy and debate between head and heart could be put to rest if we better used our heads to understand our hearts.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeletepart 1:
The play Measure for Measure by Shakepspere tackles an unfamiliar approach to the overall theme of justice. A man by the name of Cluaido is essentially sentenced to death for fornication, the crime of having premarital sex. In many arguments and conversations, Angelo, the newly appointed ruler, stands firm in his sentencing and decision that Claudio must be punished by death. The Duke of Vienna and Escalus, a trusted advisor to Angelo, both present conflict on the ideals that Angelo holds, and argue for clemency for Claudio. The play therefore shows to extreme ends of the spectrum in terms of judicial decisions. Either you show almost complete clemency and understanding for crimes like the duke, or are extremely harsh and disregard circumstances like Angelo. This in turn creates the moral question of whether or not empathy belongs in judicial decision making.
part 2;
ReplyDeleteEscalus in an early conversation with Angleo brings up a pivotal point, stating that Angelo is being extremely harsh on Claudio in an unjust way. Justice is the most important principle that guides rulers and escalus argues this is a violation of that. He says that Angelo too has surely made the same mistake of fornication, and therefore punishing Claudio so extremely is extremely hypocritical(paraphrase of 2.1 page 5) This in my opinion is a valid critique of the extreme angle that Angelo supports. If all judicial decision makers were to be extremely critical of every crime and disregard circumstance, it creates a moral dilemma. In an extreme case in our world , like a man being sentenced to prison for jaywalking, a Judge should never then jaywalk. If a judge was committing minor crimes that don’t deserve harsh punishments, but then lacking empathy in sentencing people who have committed the same crime, it renders the justice system null. Judicial decision making should always have an aspect of empathy that's quite simple, walking a mile in a person's shoes. If a judge simply puts himself in the position of the person being sentenced, it allows for them to have a mirror into their own life, and thus provides an aspect of fairness. Judges need empathy because without it we fail to neglect the value of someone who may even be a criminal. Stealing bread for a starving family doesn;t deserve the same punishment as stealing out of greed. Circumstances make the person so therefore empathy is needed in order to deliver justice. While this is true, it doesn;t mean complete empathy/ forgiveness is always needed.
The prior ruler to Vienna, the Duke, had lacke to enforce any laws and thus also created an unjust society. Society needs some form of harshness or punishment for crimes in order to protect overall well being. Angelo does summarize this in the play where he essentially says in act 2 of scene 2 that Claudio dying serves a purpose. When the duke before him had ruled laws had meant nothing. No one was abiding by them so when someone is severely punished, it serves as a deterrent to other people. These people then in turn follow the law. This methodology shows pity to society which outweighs any pity shown to claudio because it serves as a warning to society. Without a punishment like this people wouldn;t have any warning for when they break similar laws which aren't fair to them, or society ( paraphrase of Measure for Measure Act 2 Scene 2). Here I agree with Angelo to a degree. If those making judicial laws are never harsh or enforce punishments then the law means nothing. Society isn;t given empathy because there is no punishment for breaking laws. Severe crimes like murder would go unpunished and therefore cause detriment to society. Adherence to law and punishment serves a value in that it deters future harm to people and society overall.
Angelo’s firm stance on Claudios execution gives a perfect mirror into our justice system now. A good judicial system must do what is just. From angelo’s example earlier, it is quite clear empathy is needed. Anyone can commit a crime and it is unjust to think as a judge you are above that. Having empathy for criminals creates justice because it respects the individuality of the criminal. At the same time punishment is needed to a severe degree to ensure deterrence. If there exist punishments for what is bad in society, that crime won't happen. The most clear solution then is a middle ground. Judges need to enforce laws with punishments, while also keeping empathy. It is a tall task yet that is what the justice system is created to do, deliver justice.
The play makes both points apparent and ideal, even if Angelo is the antagonist. We should think of the victims of the crime and what they think needs to be done to prevent further harm, while also thinking of what is appropriate, fair, and helpful. However, in this case, the crime is very different from most modern-day crimes; it is victimless. The only possible victim is their unborn child, who would have faced no issues that the court is trying to prevent since their parents would have married before their birth. With Claudio’s death, the child would be a victim of the court and their extreme rulings. The play takes the stance of using empathy in moderation. At the same time, every crime may not benefit from empathy and get in the way of keeping people safe and happy; crimes that only harm oneself or do no harm at all must be taken into account. If the court's job to the people is to prevent harm, a lack of empathy would make them the most harmful, killing and imprisoning people who do not deserve it. While a court filled with only empathy would lead to actually dangerous people to cause more harm. Both extremes do no justice for the people; the only way forward would be a mix of empathy and the lack thereof. In Claudio’s case, killing him would lead to more harm, both to his fiancee and unborn child; having empathy in this situation, and not rules blind to circumstance, would create a better society.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, empathy is defined as “the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to … feelings, thoughts, and experiences of another.” Today, empathy has become one of the most highly-regarded traits, along with traditional characteristics like honesty and intellect. But is empathy really that important? In the Shakespeare play Measure for Measure, empathy and apathy are contrasted during a criminal trial.
ReplyDeleteAngelo, the deputy duke of Vienna, is a proponent of strict adherence to the law, no matter the circumstances. Isabella, the defendant’s sister, is the voice of empathy. Initially, Angelo sticks to his sentencing of Claudio. However, Isabella’s pleas manage to convince him otherwise. Angelo’s arguments further collapse after he lusts for Isabella, revealing his hypocrisy. This highlights that even the most rational and strict people have their flaws, and that imposing rules without any empathy fails to acknowledge each person’s humanity. The play critiques the inflexibility of justice solely decided by our heads, showing that individual circumstances are an important factor as well.
In a criminal trial, it is essential to balance logical and emotional reasoning. Relying solely on our heads might cause us to miss mitigating or aggravating factors. Cold justice might impose too harsh of a punishment on somebody with an otherwise clean record, as with Claudio in the play. Utilizing too much heart could lead to favoritism and biases, further perpetuating the stereotypes that plague our justice system. A balance of heart and head would instead be the best strategy to achieve justice, although the optimal amount of logic and emotions could vary from case to case.
In Shakespeare's play, Measure for Measure, Shakespeare provides an interesting point of view on the role of empathy in judicial decision making. Angelo's part in the play provides a very clear role model for the headstrong, heartless decision maker. Angelo shows no remorse or empathy towards the people that he convicts, and instead follows the law as strictly as possible when enforcing punishments, and does so suddenly. When discussing lord Angelo's legal decisions, Escalus says that the severity of his decision is, "but needful. mercy is not itself that oft looks so. Pardon is still the nurse of second woe," (Shakespeare, 55). The significance of this quote coming from Escalus, shows the reasoning behind the perspective of one who is hesitant to show mercy (Angelo). The idea that leniency toward someone who has committed a crime might show them that they can get away with it again, is something that was in practice in this society. This explains why Angelo wanted to put a halt on crime completely, and did so by the means of harsh law enforcement. However, it is clear that, as Claudio's friend, Escalus does not believe that this is exactly justified, but he shows an understanding of Angelo's reasoning.
ReplyDeleteMeasure for Measure cycles through three notions of judging–one that gives too much weight to empathy, thus eroding the rule of law; one that wanders in the opposite direction, brutalizing the law through strict constructionism; and, finally, one that perceives justice as being far too murky for either extreme. The first sense of the title that the play presents is religious–derived from the Sermon on the Mount: “For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again” (Matthew 7:2). In this case, true judgment is, in fact, non-judgment; since we are all sinners, none should cast the first stone. Shakespeare personifies this sentiment through the Duke. After realizing this method of judging to be too lax, though, he asserts, "’‘Twould be my tyranny to strike and gall them”, referring to the victims of his leniency–his citizens (MM 1.3.39). The second sense put forth is that of commensurability: an eye for an eye. Supposedly, the punishment should fit the crime. This position is taken by Angelo, who seeks retribution by way of lex talionis. He posits: “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” (MM 2.1.470). Though this perspective aligns with his notion of strict justice, it crumbles under Angelo’s hypocrisy. While he may outwardly uphold the law by the book, he ultimately fails to meet his own rigid standards. The final model is the sense of judging with measure, steered by Aristotelian temperance. While this method may lead to less concrete results, it is unquestionably more human. It requires the utmost discretion and demonstration of agency. This balanced stance is represented by Escalus, whose name literally means “scales.” Shakespeare proffers the third ethic–the via media–as the most desirable. He presents a world that cannot be governed solely by empathy or solely by standardized and rigid law. The play instructs its audience to eliminate both extremes at the outset of judgment. The purpose of judging is to fairly apply general laws to particular situations, not to focus on one or the other. Humanity has long struggled with the timelessly competing principles that drive justice and, while we cannot expect to end this struggle, we can quell it with greater measure.
ReplyDeleteIn Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure, he explores both sides of empathy vs enforcement in the justice system. When Angelo and Escalus are discussing Claudio’s sentence, Escalus asks, “That, in the working of your own affections, Had time cohered with place, or place with wishing, Or that the resolute acting of your blood Could have attained th’ effect of your own purpose, Whether you had not sometime in your life Erred in this point which now you censure him, And pulled the law upon you” (2.2.11-7). Escalus is on the side of empathy, and prompts Angelo to think about what if he [Angelo] had made the same mistake Claudio had. He makes Angelo think if he would enforce the same punishment on himself. Being the enforcer that he is Angelo responds, “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. Sir, he must die) (2.2.30-3). Angelo doubles down and says that he should be killed if he committed the same offence. Escalus tries to state that this is a common offence and one so small that death is an unworthy punishment, so he pleads that Claudio be given mercy. However, he is not the one in charge. This is not so much a play about empathy vs enforcement, but more a play about those who in control get to decide what happens. Angelo has that power, and believes that anyone who commits the crime should be punished with death to scare people into quitting, so empathy is out of the question. No matter who pleads with Angelo and tries to get empathy in the judicial system, there is no room as an empathetic person is not in power.
ReplyDeleteIn Measure for Measure, a play by William Shakespeare, empathy in lawmaking is heavily debated. On one hand Isabella pleads for Angelo to govern with his heart, telling him to step into Claudio’s shoes. However, Angelo believes that if he is stricter with the laws, less immoral things will occur. While I understand Angelo’s notion to prevent crime and keep the peace, I also understand Isabella’s concern about the severity of the laws. There can be punishments for crimes, but not all of them have to be as harsh as the death sentence, especially for a “crime” as simple as sleeping with someone before getting married. Although Angelo enforces laws and preaches justice and morality, he himself is not so clean or pure of a man either. He attempts to blackmail Isabella into sleeping with him in order to save her brother. In this case, he is thinking with neither his head or his heart, if you know what I mean. However, Isabella’s case isn’t perfect either. If we were ruled by government officials who thought the way Isabella does, we would have a very lenient government that might be allowing criminals who deserve punishment to run free. Additionally, empathy in the government can lead to bias, as government officials may pardon people they have personal connections with and be less strict with the rules for people they know or even themselves. I believe we should find a middle ground, where everyone is treated equally but we are still reasonable with punishments.
ReplyDeleteThe play Measure For Measure shows a system of government that uses neither only hard and strict laws nor only feelings, but a combination of both to show justice to criminals. In the play Claudio was sentenced to death for fornication with Juliet who was his soon to be wife and fiance. Yet the fact that he committed this act before marriage which was a short way away shows the short amount of tolerance and empathy given in the play. In reality we know that things like that are often pushed under the table as minor offenses similar to speeding, not wearing a seatbelt or using a turn signal. Angelo comments on how he views enforcing the law upon his people when he says “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. Sir, he must die) (2.2.30-3). In this quote, Angelo exclaims how he thinks that he can apply the death penalty to whatever he wants. This shows that Angelo has little to no empathy at all which is what the duke was worried about when he gave the leadership over to Angelo. Similar to our current Prison system empathy plays a very little role in it and is only used in small capacities in maybe a jury or select judges. Angelo is basing his decisions based on the law and the law only. He is not considering anything else but that.
ReplyDeleteIn Measure for Measure, empathy is explored particularly through the characters of Angelo and Isabella, and how a lack of thereof can be dangerous as can an abundance. The first aspect of empathy explored is Angelo’s strict enforcement of the law without empathy. This may seem logical initially, as he believes that justice must be impartial and that impartiality is an example of empathy. He defends this view when he says, “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, contextualized to real situations, the approach is detached from any forms of empathy and humanity, which Isabella challenges by pointing out how easily anyone could fall into the same trap as Claudio. She 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). Here, she points out that he’s mistaking empathy for his conception of justice, and such emotion is lost in the process. However, what’s interesting about the play is how it critiques both extremes, showing that Isabella’s emotional appeal has its merits but is incomplete. Empathy alone can obfuscate judgment and justice, as it might prioritize personal and subjective feelings over fairness, leading to injustice on net. On the other hand, Angelo’s cold logic fails to account for the nuances of real life, making his decisions feel almost cruel. Thus, the play seems to advocate for this middle ground, wherein reason and empathy are employed to create ethics.
ReplyDelete