Argument Analysis
Objection Summary
Based on an analysis of your initial post, I understand your objection to be based on Nussbaum’s ambiguities and assumptions that demand for the use of emotion in the language of judging. In other words, you object to the ambiguity on the understanding and use of emotions by judges as alluded to by Nussbaum. For instance, the assumption that judges should not only know the facts and circumstances of a case, but also how these affect the participants. The notion of freedom from bias deconstruct this argument since judges, as well as everyone else is affected by society’s problems and thus susceptible to biases even when they are undetectable. You also have a strong point on how the use of emotion in judicial language can be dangerous to different groups, more so the victims of implicit bias.
Defending the Articles
Although your objection is sound, there are many reasons why it may fail. For instance, Nussbaum begins the article by arguing that emotions are based on the perception of an object or complicated beliefs about the object (Nussbaum 25). This takes us back to defining what the purpose of the courts are and for whom the courts are meant. The laws created within society are not meant to oppress the people, but to extend justice in the best way possible. Therefore, for a judge to feel sympathetic about an individual’s plight, they need to understand how the events and circumstances have affected the individual. Nussbaum also argues that emotions are embodiments of thoughts and they are therefore a fundamental part of judicial reasoning and writing. On the aspect of eliminating individual biases (especially the implicit ones), a judge is urged to act as a spectator. This means that instead of putting him/herself in the situation of the participants, one should observe like a spectator who has no involvement in the case. It is an argument based on Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments (Nussbaum 25).
Another strong argument raised for the need to include emotions in judicial reasoning and writing is the admission that more often than not, misfortunes affect people’s objectivity in assessing both their situation as well as their actions. As a judicial spectator, one is exposed to numerous emotions such as anger and compassion which stem from reasoning and beliefs. Although these arguments appear to suggest that all emotions should be considered and included, a clarification is made to ensure that judges have the capacity to discern when biases creep in. For instance, the emotions of judges must be informed by the facts of the case and a holistic perception of the case. It means that one should discern the significance of the case to the participants and how they understand it. The emotions expressed should be of the spectator not the participant. This means that a judge’s personal interests in the case should be suppressed to allow them to understand the events as they happened.
One point that is extensively argued throughout the case is that of filtering individual biases. Biases cannot be fully eliminated, but as a judge, one needs to identify them and work to eliminate them in every instance while reviewing the case as a spectator (). The emotions portrayed and encouraged are those stemming from a review of the evidence. Therefore, sympathetic emotion with ties to the evidence presented and filtered for bias is essential to advancing public judgment.
Work Cited