Friday, September 12, 2014

Reason, Emotion, and the Law

by Michael Dorf

In my column on Wednesday discussing last week's same-sex marriage rulings, I noted that in his opinion upholding the Louisiana ruling, Judge Feldman dismissed the many contrary rulings by other federal courts as based on "empathy" and "pathos." As I explained, the charge was backwards: once one considers the arguments in play, it appears that the opponents of SSM are the ones who have given in to unreason. Indeed, in recent years and across a range of issues, American conservatives have more generally come to believe their "guts," (to use Stephen Colbert's line), even when the actual facts as evinced by evidence are to the contrary. (E.g., climate change; evolution; U.S. history). That is not to say that there aren't plenty of liberals whose views of the world are faith-based rather than evidence-based; there are; I'm simply making a comparative point.

Nonetheless, the claim that one's opponents have based their views on emotion rather than reason is a very common move, both in the culture generally and in law in particular. And it also tends to be a more common move on the right than on the left. For example, conservatives oppose raising--or in the orthodox view even having--the minimum wage because, they say, markets set wages, so that the minimum wage can only have any effect when the market wage is lower, thus raising costs, suppressing demand, and ultimately increasing unemployment. The argument is right under a certain sort of economic theory but wrong or at best very overstated in practice. However, here I'm less concerned with the employment effect, if any, of minimum wages, than I am with the familiar structure of the argument: Conservatives say that some well-meaning policy based on an emotional reaction of liberals will actually be counter-productive.

Standard views of the law incorporate this use-your-head-not-your-heart logic. Think of the iconic statue of Lady Justice blindfolded so that she does not give in to sympathy. Or think of standard jury instructions warning jurors. They warn jurors not to decide the case based on prejudice, which is fair enough, but they also tell jurors not to decide based on sympathy. Sympathy, like empathy, is seen as antithetical to the cold hard logic of the law.

During my first few years teaching at Columbia Law School, I encountered a reminder of the law's conventional opposition of reason and emotion whenever I looked out my office window, which opened up into the bowels of a famous Jacques Lipchitz statue of Bellerophon taming Pegasus. That office was considered undesirable (which is why I had it as a junior faculty member), and it was later turned into open space during building renovations, but I found the view through the statue interesting (albeit less conducive to quiet thought than my current views of Cayuga Lake and a waterfall). In any event, the statue was meant to symbolize Law (Bellerophon) bringing passion (Pegasus) under its control. As my former colleague Peter Strauss used to note, however, if you look closely at the statue you see something more like the opposite: Pegasus begins where Bellerophon's head should be, suggesting that passion has overtaken reason; Professor Strauss would also note that Lipchitz agreed to create the statue in the mid-1960s but it was not completed for many years, and that the growth of passion relative to reason reflected a certain perspective on the tumult of the period.

I'd like to offer an alternative interpretation of the statue, that may or may not have any connection to Licpchitz's intentions. Putting aside my objection to the premise that humans symbolize reason and other animals symbolize passion, I would argue the merger of Bellerophon as reason and Pegasus as passion symbolizes the inextricability of reason and emotion. The statue as thus reconceived rebukes the familiar notion that law should, or even can, be about thinking divorced from feeling.

The most famous articulation of a view of this sort in constitutional law is Justice Blackmun's dissent in the DeShaney case. There, the majority held that a county social services agency was not accountable for failing to intervene to protect a minor child from severe abuse at the hands of his father. Blackmun wrote that "compassion need not be exiled from the province of judging." But even that account of the view I am expounding understates the role of emotion, because Justice Blackmun conceptualized compassion (or emotion) as separate from reason. His idea was that a wise judge tempers justice with mercy, reason with feeling.

Yet modern brain science shows that emotion and reason are not even separate processes. People with damage to the emotional centers of their brains have great difficulty making decisions and reasoning more broadly. As Rebecca Tushnet argues in a recent Harvard Law Review article, the recognition of the role of emotion in reasoning should have concrete doctrinal applications in the law. Even more broadly, it has implications for how we understand the function of law itself.

13 comments:

Joe said...

Conservatives repeatedly shown emotion themselves (often negative ones like scorn) so their holier than thou conceit here is particularly hard to take at times.

See also:

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2014/09/passive-aggressive-scalia-and-garner-on.html

Anyway, the last point made here is appreciated. People apply the law, not robots. Emotion is going to factor in & in some fashion this is not a bad thing. But, it's going to be part of things, so you have to factor it in regardless.

Rick said...

Overall I agree with Prof. Dorf’s view.

The dichotomy between emotion and reason in law seems artificial. And its premises—that the law’s opposition of reason and emotion is “conventional,” that Lady Justice is blindfolded so that she does not give in to “sympathy,” or that the logic of the law is supposed to be “cold” and “hard”—appear to rest on absolutions of sorts, thereby overlooking the fact the law is an art, not a science.

A law is a good law, not because it is demonstrably divorced from emotion, but because it is a just law. And a just law does come from emotion at times. Consider, for example, the influence of victim impact evidence on the sentencing in capital cases. A categorical exclusion of victim impact evidence would dutifully adhere to the cold hard logic of the law because it is based on reason rather than caprice or emotion. But it is not a just law because it turns a blind eye to the massive suffering caused by a defendant’s killing, with which most of us have the innate ability to sympathize. Justice is better served by allowing state to present evidence “offering a quick glimpse of the life which [the] defendant chose to extinguish” and “demonstrating the loss to the victim's family and to society ... result[ing] from the defendant's homicide.” Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 822. That is the role of emotion in a just law.

Joe said...

I appreciate Rick's comment but think that on balance the dissent is correct as applied regarding victim impact evidence at least in death penalty cases. It isn't even really necessary for the purposes of the quoted.

喜洋洋 said...

高雄縣徵信商業同業公會
南部徵信聯盟
外遇觀測站
大愛離婚諮詢網
離婚大剖析
大愛徵信有限公司
尋人專家徵信服務網
女人徵信公司
華陀徵信
離婚協助中心
跟蹤蒐證徵信器材網
抓姦觀測
大愛徵信
溫馨徵信
成功徵信社

Emma O'Connell said...

I'd like to offer an alternative interpretation of the statue, that may or may not have any connection to Licpchitz's intentions. Putting aside my objection to the premise that humans symbolize reason and other animals symbolize passion, I would argue the merger of Bellerophon as reason and Pegasus as passion symbolizes the inextricability of reason and emotion.FIFA 15 Coins
fifa15.mmo18.com
FUT 15 Coins

obat herbal said...

cara mengobati bintik kutil pada kelamin dan cara mengobati menghilangkan kutil dan cara mengobati kutil kelamin dan kelamin keluar nanah dan obat kutil kelamin dan obat kutil kelamin tradisional dan peyakit herpes genital dan infeksi herpes simpleks dan apa penyebab dan bagaimana herspes bisa dan apa penyebab dan bagaimana herspes bisa dan cara pencegahan penularan herpes dan bagaimana penyakit herpes bisa menular yang tentunya sangat berbahaya

wasirdenature said...

obat kanker payudara stadium 3 kanker serviks obat kanker serviks obat herbal kanker

wasirdenature said...

obat kanker payudara herbal herbal kanker kemaluan keluar nanah kemaluan laki laki eluar nanah

wasirdenature said...

cara mengobati kemaluan keluar nanah kenapa kemaluan lelaki keluar nanah kemaluan keluar cairan nanah obat penyakit kelamin kencing nanah

herbal medicine said...

obat kanker payudara stadium 3 kanker serviks obat kanker serviks obat herbal kanker

obat herbal said...

obat kanker payudara stadium 3 kanker serviks obat kanker serviks obat herbal kanker

lionelmessi10 said...

mengapa kelamin keluar nanah kencing perih dan keluar cairan nanah obat kemaluan keluar nanah ampuh obat alat kelamin keluar nanah nanah keluar dari penis oengobatan sipilis denature cara menyembuhkan kelamin keluar nanah cairan nanah keluar dari penis keluar nanah pada kemaluan wanita penyebab ujung penis keluar nanah keluar nanah pada kemaluan pria bahaya penyakit kencing nanah pada pria

obat herbal said...

Obat kencing Nanah De Nature Obat Herbal obat Kutil Kelaminobat kutil kelamin dan kutil kelamin dan kutil di kemaluan dan kutil di sekitar kemaluan dan obat kutil di kemaluan dan obat kutil kelamin di apotik dan kutil pada kemaluan pria dan obat herbal kutil kelamin dan obat kutil di sekitar kemaluan dan muncul bintik kutil pada kelamin dan obat ampuh menghilangkan kutil kelamin dan obat kutil di kemaluan merupakan solusi pengobatan herbal dari denature indonesia