Just Feelings

Will Wilkinson makes a fine case against the death penalty.

Now, I don't know how to convince you that even especially heinous murderers don't deserve to suffer the same fate they meted out. I suppose I would start by distinguishing justice from vengeance. I would observe that there is no pervasive ethereal moral substance that must be kept in some sort of cosmic balance lest society devolve into chaos. We may feel deeply, in our marrow, in our prickling indignant skin, that the yin of crime calls out for the yang of punishment. But I would warn against putting much trust our retributive instincts. I would suggest that civilization demands setting these feelings aside, that it requires that we ask ourselves in a cool hour the point of criminal justice.

I'm still convinced that justice is still largely about what people feel, not what they think. It isn't necessarily an illegitimate stance, but certainly cause for concern. That is, if you can't make a rational argument for something, without merely resorting to "how it feels", then you're in dangerous territory.

I've highlighted in bold what I think is a crucial point.  Revenge is a very common argument for punishment from the general public. Yet eye-for-eye style justice is absurd, leading to all sorts of logical barbarism, much of which those same people would likely find distasteful (until they got used to it, no doubt! Fox would make a killing on P.P.V.).

So this sort of justice-by-feeling seems rather squishy, even when we are merely talking about that nebulous concept of social retribution. In other words, what determines what wrong has been done to society, if our "feelings" are so unreliable?

I'm still unclear as to what service it provides us that utilitarianism does not. Certainly a citizen 1000 years ago would experience feelings of unwhetted blood-lust, were a convicted murderer not to be executed in public, after humiliation and torture. Yet we require modern man to bite his lip and be satisfied with less. Is the modern man worse off, not having had his dark taste? Maybe in order to truly fulfill what is rightfully ours, by this supposedly sacred instinct, we should indeed give the thirsty public what it wants.

The Delicacy of Nuance

A favorite education blog of mine is Bridging Differences, penned by Deborah Meier and Diane Ravitch.  A recent post by Deborah however, interested me less for its actual subject than for the issues it raised in how we all communicate to each other.  The thesis of her post was that in many ways the modern school is like a prison.  The students are forced to attend.  They are not allowed to leave.  They must generally listen when spoken to and register any protest in strictly muted form.  In the post she used words like "abuse", "torture" "coercion" and "justice".  These terms all have a rather large spectrum of contextual meanings, and Deborah's use mainly resided in the less-severe form.

One of her commenters took offense at her choice of words, pointing out that what she was describing seemed not to warrant such hyperbolic language.  Could one not get the wrong impression from such heated words?

I think that might be true, but I can completely relate to Deborah's style of thinking - even though it constantly gets me in hot water!  It's all in the nuance.  Because from another mouth, those words might indeed sound really terrible.  But if you "get" what she is trying to say, there is a very powerfully spoken emotion in her language that might be sacrificed in a "tidier" version.  The danger, of course, is in this type of language being misread, especially as it can sometimes sound like the sort of cynical rhetorical device used by propagandists, in that the intent (consciously or not) to deceive or manipulate.

To elaborate, this is how I at least defend my own style, which I think is similar.  There is a certain faith that is placed in the listener that assumes they are interested in taking a kind of walk with me, that they too are operating in good faith and are willing to possibly forgive the inaccuracies implicit in what I am saying in order to, with me, understand a deeper meaning that may not otherwise be understood.

The reader is in this way thought of as a serious and capable participant.  In the same way a poet might choose beauty over specificity, or a musician might choose dynamism before harmony, a leap is being taken with the hope that the listener will follow.

Obviously, this technique requires delicacy, and could easily slip into laziness.  Yet for those to whom this type of writing - thinking, really - appeals, it is in their DNA to carry on this way.  In the same way a more literal or linear thinker's lack of nuance, or "art", must be overlooked in order to appreciate their special focus and well-chosen delivery, the abstract, impassioned speaker must be indulged to reap the charm of whatever new and delightful dalliance they might take.

So, are schools really like "prisons" for children.  Often torturous, or abusive?  Well, yeah.  I know exactly what she means!