The Deciders
When I was growing up (oh, Jesus . . .), one of the worst things you'd want to be labeled was judgmental. Matthew 7:1 was everybody's favorite Bible verse. Today judgmentalism is making a serious comeback.
I see two forms of judgmentalism. The first form is the decision between whether a person is guilty of a crime, be it murder, lewdness, heresy, or plain old rambunctiousness. This form comes into play when not all parties involved agree on the facts (e.g., when person A stands accused by person B of murder; they plead their cases and allow for some person or group, C, to decide whose story is right).
The second form of judgmentalism is the labeling as morally wrong someone else's deeds. This type of judgmentalism applies to situations wherein there is no "accuser" and "accusee" because there is no debate as to whether the deed was done, only whether it was wrong. (E.g., when person A warns person B that he is hell-bound for sodomizing person C, an act which both persons B and C remember as a pleasant time.)
I have grown up believing that Type-1 judgmentalism is a necessary evil in this world, and that it is the purpose of a fair justice system to do all that is humanly possible to arrive at the truth in cases where justice needs to be served. I believe Type-2 judgmentalism should very rarely be committed, because in most cases of moral misdeed, the Golden Rule, or some manifestation of it, is broken, and virtually all human beings today will agree that the deed is morally wrong, regardless of each person's creed or lack thereof. When two people agree on the facts but disagree as to whether the deed is right or wrong, appeal to the sanctity of the Golden Rule should settle the argument. I think this viewpoint is becoming less popular over time, but I will leave Type-2 judgmentalism for another blog entry.
Type-1 judgmentalism, which I argue is necessary but unpleasant, is reveled in today. Consider the popularity of court cases in the media, whether actually televised or just continually covered by in the news. From Judy to Ito, from The People's Court to Court TV, from Hussein to McVeigh, America is in love with court cases. Ask fifty Americans who Scott Peterson is and who Ben Bernanke is, and you will get a glimpse of how our burgeoning judgmentalism has eclipsed other, seemingly more important, interests. (Then ask them who John Paul Stevens is and have a hemorrhage.)
The reason I believe the justice system is a necessary evil, but an evil nonetheless, is that we humans can never be completely certain about any case. There always remains the distant possiblity that an absurdly intricate frameup was executed. It is therefore the terrible burden of a jury to draw a line at, say, 97% certainty ("reasonable doubt"), across which a suspect can be labeled guilty and made to suffer a just punishment. I seem to be of a dying breed who think this is a grave matter.
Strictly interpreted, to punish a criminal is to violate the Golden Rule (which, I should state for exactitude, is Do unto others as you would have them do unto you). For justice to be served, and for members of our society to feel safe and happy, we allow this violation, so long as the punishment somehow fits the crime (that's a whole nother can of worms).
In murder cases, premeditation is pivotal in deciding the punishment. Whether the murderer thought about his cruel deed in advance, calculating how to do it and get away with it, or whether he sliced up his victim in a sudden fit of rage, makes all the difference in how the deed should be punished (for who hasn't felt the sudden urge to slice up his life partner or bank teller from time to time?). To send a man to jail for thirty years, or life, or to electrocute him, is done with great care and premeditation. So if the man is not guilty of the crime for which justice is thereby sought, he is gravely wronged. Nevertheless, it's the sad duty of the jury to proclaim a fellow human guilty of a crime (or not) and allow the punishment to be given (or not). It is their sad lot to live with the 3% possibility that they have condemned an innocent man.
For me, not sitting on the jury, it is better to assume the absurd frameup. What I believe has consequence neither for the suspect nor the victim, so it is my happy lot to be able to forgive the crime and hold blameless the man whom the authorities think most likely did it. I do not think that ignorance is bliss; as a scientist, I chase knowledge for a living. But I do think that because ultimate ignorance is a simple fact, those who are not charged with deciding the outcome of a trial should embrace their ignorance and forgive the suspect. I think, like Blackstone, that it is better to let ten guilty men go free than to condemn an innocent one.
When O.J. was found not guilty, I was happy for him. My cursory attention (and wasted attention - I wasn't as enlightened as a teenager as I am today, of course) to the case had me convinced that it was about 80% likely that he killed his ex-wife and her boyfriend. So, were I a betting man, with God taking the wagers, I would have put $100 on "guilty." But I would not have sent a man to jail for life, based on the sublunary evidence given the jury. It's more important to assume men are innocent, until proven otherwise, than to punish crimes. I don't think 80% is proof, regardless of what my vodka bottle says.
The main thrust of my opposition to Type-1 judgmentalism is that because no one knows what happened, it is everyone's responsibility to forgive what happened.
But it goes beyond deeds. You may observe someone doing something, but still not know why. After watching Borat, my friends and I were stunned at some of the things Sacha Baron Cohen got people to say. People sang along about throwing Jews down the well, and hinted that perhaps our society would be better off without having abolished slavery. We were disgusted to hear such bigotry. Then there was the Michael Richards explosion. Revolting.
John McWhorter, in reply, found Richards's apology meaningless and done purely out of practicality. He said that the apology could not signify a "miraculous" change in Richards's feelings about black people. My question is, how does McWhorter know Richards's feelings? Why does he put unswerving faith in Richards's words one night as Richards is being heckled at a night club, and dismiss his words the next day as meaningless?
The irrefutable fact is that one cannot know what goes on in another's heart, especially on such flimsy evidence as what comes out of his mouth. Richards's words were terrible. But as long as there remains the possibility, however remote (and for Richards, I don't think it's that remote), that Michael Richards is not a rabid bigot with a seething hatred for black people, why go on NPR and say that it's obvious that he is? One explanation for the outburst is that the Klansman mafia were at the show and were aiming a high-caliber bullet at Richards's temple and forcing him to yell the n-word repeatedly at their African-American undercover agents who had been heckling him. Not likely, to be sure, but there are more likely explanations that fall short of the rabid bigot one, so why not believe one of them? Why not forgive Richards's sin, in the knowledge that you too might one day say some thing that you regret and need the forgiveness of those who heard it?
As for Borat, I just heard Baron Cohen on Fresh Air conclude from his experiences making his hilarious movie that the chorus of throwing the Jew down the well sung by the American drunks was indeed disturbing because, as Ian Kershaw put it, the road to Auschwitz was paved with indifference. I think Baron Cohen and Kershaw are spot-on, but that Baron Cohen is pretty danged hypocritical to accuse others of indifference tantamount to National Socialism as he portrays a Muslim from a country, he admits in that very interview, that no one has heard of, and therefore portrays Muslims in general, as oafish, dirty, immoral, and racist.
But the movie was hilarious. And I don't think Baron Cohen is racist; I simply think he tried to have a good laugh and even make fun of racists, without thinking too deeply of what a racist picture he is unfairly painting of others. That's the key: I give people the benefit of the doubt. Richards, Baron Cohen and victims, Reggie White, Mel Gibson, anybody who has said something and been labeled a racist, they are forgiven in my heart so long as they insist that they themselves are not racists, and their deeds back that up (or at least don't contradict it). It doesn't mean, David Duke, that I'm going to vote for them for president. But in the interest of being non-judgmental, if it doesn't help end racism by me believing in my heart that Michael Richards is a racist, why would I want to? Why should I feel compelled to?
I see two forms of judgmentalism. The first form is the decision between whether a person is guilty of a crime, be it murder, lewdness, heresy, or plain old rambunctiousness. This form comes into play when not all parties involved agree on the facts (e.g., when person A stands accused by person B of murder; they plead their cases and allow for some person or group, C, to decide whose story is right).
The second form of judgmentalism is the labeling as morally wrong someone else's deeds. This type of judgmentalism applies to situations wherein there is no "accuser" and "accusee" because there is no debate as to whether the deed was done, only whether it was wrong. (E.g., when person A warns person B that he is hell-bound for sodomizing person C, an act which both persons B and C remember as a pleasant time.)
I have grown up believing that Type-1 judgmentalism is a necessary evil in this world, and that it is the purpose of a fair justice system to do all that is humanly possible to arrive at the truth in cases where justice needs to be served. I believe Type-2 judgmentalism should very rarely be committed, because in most cases of moral misdeed, the Golden Rule, or some manifestation of it, is broken, and virtually all human beings today will agree that the deed is morally wrong, regardless of each person's creed or lack thereof. When two people agree on the facts but disagree as to whether the deed is right or wrong, appeal to the sanctity of the Golden Rule should settle the argument. I think this viewpoint is becoming less popular over time, but I will leave Type-2 judgmentalism for another blog entry.
Type-1 judgmentalism, which I argue is necessary but unpleasant, is reveled in today. Consider the popularity of court cases in the media, whether actually televised or just continually covered by in the news. From Judy to Ito, from The People's Court to Court TV, from Hussein to McVeigh, America is in love with court cases. Ask fifty Americans who Scott Peterson is and who Ben Bernanke is, and you will get a glimpse of how our burgeoning judgmentalism has eclipsed other, seemingly more important, interests. (Then ask them who John Paul Stevens is and have a hemorrhage.)
The reason I believe the justice system is a necessary evil, but an evil nonetheless, is that we humans can never be completely certain about any case. There always remains the distant possiblity that an absurdly intricate frameup was executed. It is therefore the terrible burden of a jury to draw a line at, say, 97% certainty ("reasonable doubt"), across which a suspect can be labeled guilty and made to suffer a just punishment. I seem to be of a dying breed who think this is a grave matter.
Strictly interpreted, to punish a criminal is to violate the Golden Rule (which, I should state for exactitude, is Do unto others as you would have them do unto you). For justice to be served, and for members of our society to feel safe and happy, we allow this violation, so long as the punishment somehow fits the crime (that's a whole nother can of worms).
In murder cases, premeditation is pivotal in deciding the punishment. Whether the murderer thought about his cruel deed in advance, calculating how to do it and get away with it, or whether he sliced up his victim in a sudden fit of rage, makes all the difference in how the deed should be punished (for who hasn't felt the sudden urge to slice up his life partner or bank teller from time to time?). To send a man to jail for thirty years, or life, or to electrocute him, is done with great care and premeditation. So if the man is not guilty of the crime for which justice is thereby sought, he is gravely wronged. Nevertheless, it's the sad duty of the jury to proclaim a fellow human guilty of a crime (or not) and allow the punishment to be given (or not). It is their sad lot to live with the 3% possibility that they have condemned an innocent man.
For me, not sitting on the jury, it is better to assume the absurd frameup. What I believe has consequence neither for the suspect nor the victim, so it is my happy lot to be able to forgive the crime and hold blameless the man whom the authorities think most likely did it. I do not think that ignorance is bliss; as a scientist, I chase knowledge for a living. But I do think that because ultimate ignorance is a simple fact, those who are not charged with deciding the outcome of a trial should embrace their ignorance and forgive the suspect. I think, like Blackstone, that it is better to let ten guilty men go free than to condemn an innocent one.
When O.J. was found not guilty, I was happy for him. My cursory attention (and wasted attention - I wasn't as enlightened as a teenager as I am today, of course) to the case had me convinced that it was about 80% likely that he killed his ex-wife and her boyfriend. So, were I a betting man, with God taking the wagers, I would have put $100 on "guilty." But I would not have sent a man to jail for life, based on the sublunary evidence given the jury. It's more important to assume men are innocent, until proven otherwise, than to punish crimes. I don't think 80% is proof, regardless of what my vodka bottle says.
The main thrust of my opposition to Type-1 judgmentalism is that because no one knows what happened, it is everyone's responsibility to forgive what happened.
But it goes beyond deeds. You may observe someone doing something, but still not know why. After watching Borat, my friends and I were stunned at some of the things Sacha Baron Cohen got people to say. People sang along about throwing Jews down the well, and hinted that perhaps our society would be better off without having abolished slavery. We were disgusted to hear such bigotry. Then there was the Michael Richards explosion. Revolting.
John McWhorter, in reply, found Richards's apology meaningless and done purely out of practicality. He said that the apology could not signify a "miraculous" change in Richards's feelings about black people. My question is, how does McWhorter know Richards's feelings? Why does he put unswerving faith in Richards's words one night as Richards is being heckled at a night club, and dismiss his words the next day as meaningless?
The irrefutable fact is that one cannot know what goes on in another's heart, especially on such flimsy evidence as what comes out of his mouth. Richards's words were terrible. But as long as there remains the possibility, however remote (and for Richards, I don't think it's that remote), that Michael Richards is not a rabid bigot with a seething hatred for black people, why go on NPR and say that it's obvious that he is? One explanation for the outburst is that the Klansman mafia were at the show and were aiming a high-caliber bullet at Richards's temple and forcing him to yell the n-word repeatedly at their African-American undercover agents who had been heckling him. Not likely, to be sure, but there are more likely explanations that fall short of the rabid bigot one, so why not believe one of them? Why not forgive Richards's sin, in the knowledge that you too might one day say some thing that you regret and need the forgiveness of those who heard it?
As for Borat, I just heard Baron Cohen on Fresh Air conclude from his experiences making his hilarious movie that the chorus of throwing the Jew down the well sung by the American drunks was indeed disturbing because, as Ian Kershaw put it, the road to Auschwitz was paved with indifference. I think Baron Cohen and Kershaw are spot-on, but that Baron Cohen is pretty danged hypocritical to accuse others of indifference tantamount to National Socialism as he portrays a Muslim from a country, he admits in that very interview, that no one has heard of, and therefore portrays Muslims in general, as oafish, dirty, immoral, and racist.
But the movie was hilarious. And I don't think Baron Cohen is racist; I simply think he tried to have a good laugh and even make fun of racists, without thinking too deeply of what a racist picture he is unfairly painting of others. That's the key: I give people the benefit of the doubt. Richards, Baron Cohen and victims, Reggie White, Mel Gibson, anybody who has said something and been labeled a racist, they are forgiven in my heart so long as they insist that they themselves are not racists, and their deeds back that up (or at least don't contradict it). It doesn't mean, David Duke, that I'm going to vote for them for president. But in the interest of being non-judgmental, if it doesn't help end racism by me believing in my heart that Michael Richards is a racist, why would I want to? Why should I feel compelled to?
posted by john at
11:52 AM
0 Comments
