This section contains words approx.
One should not be misled by the apparent simplicity of the question.
As the collection admirably demonstrates, the question can be approached from numerous angles, and can be given various distinct and subtle answers. The novel purportedly demonstrates through its protagonist Michael the potential tension between understanding someone who has committed serious wrongdoing his former lover, Hanna and morally judging or condemning her.
Unbeknownst to Michael, the older Hanna had been involved in terrible Nazi war crimes. But parts of her story also previously unknown to him seem to place these deeds in a context in which one could feel some amount of sympathy for why she performed them.
Is it possible for Michael to morally condemn Hanna once he has come to understand the circumstances which led her to perform her terrible deeds? Does his understanding of her stand in tension with his ability to judge her?
Some authors consider the notion that like Hanna, all agents have a backstory, a narrative with the potential to mitigate wrongdoing. Yet others argue that there is no tension between judging and understanding -- understanding merely provides a better means for judging appropriately.
These are just some of the many issues considered in this engaging collection. Overall, the collection is interesting and provocative. Tabensky provides a brief introduction to the whole collection, as well as one-page or shorter introductions to each essay.
Although the essays are difficult to categorize as Tabensky readily admitsthey are divided into three sections. The first section is Narrative, Explanation and Forgiveness: The Limits of Condemnation.
This section explores and sets up several of the central issues. She argues in favor of the Senecan ideal of a merciful justice which considers the narrative of the perpetrator and all the particularities of the case, and which then reacts with mildness and sympathy, rather than with strict proportionality.
The second essay, by Ward E. Jones, engages in a descriptive project, arguing that we do in fact judge less harshly upon gaining a better understanding of a wrongdoing. But he also demonstrates that not just any sort of explanation will count as giving us this better understanding he cites Martha Nussbaum and Raymond Gaita as both giving good explanatory schemes.
In their respective essays, Brian Penrose and Marc Fellman each argue that there is a tension between judging and understanding, and that taking up the viewpoint of the agent does and should lead to less harsh judgement.
Penrose focuses on understanding as an attitudinal state rather than as something that we do. Fellman focuses on a parallel between the tension of judging and understanding and the tension between moral enormity and moral complexity.
Both authors claim that understanding, while in tension with judging, is not the same as condoning wrong action. In her contribution, Samantha Vice argues that there is an asymmetry between the effects of understanding another and of understanding oneself.
Mercy is and ought to be the result of understanding another, but because mercy requires an objective stance, the same cannot hold of understanding oneself. To take an objective stance towards oneself would be to take oneself out of the realm of agency.
In general, this part of the collection is helpful. A number of distinctions are drawn here which provide orienting insights and which illustrate the multifaceted nature of the problem. Nussbaum distinguishes between kinds of justice, Jones between kinds of explanations, Vice between first-personal and third-personal judgments, Penrose between understanding as an action and as a state as well as between kinds of pleasand Fellman between differing accounts of responsibility.President Trump should treat the Charlottesville Nazis with the same specificity with which he denounces the New York Times.
"Lorde's words — on race, cancer, intersectionality, parenthood, injustice — burn with relevance 25 years after her death." — O, The Oprah Magazine Winner of the Before Columbus Foundation National Book Award, this path-breaking collection of essays is a clarion call to build communities.
Feb 14, · Is the ‘Anthropocene’ Epoch a Condemnation of Human Interference — or a Call for More? Image. Credit Credit Illustration by Javier Jaén.
By . Charles Darwin was born in , seven years after his grandfather Erasmus had died. Charles grew up during a conservative period in British and American society, shortly after the Napoleonic Wars. The Man of the Crowd, by Edgar Allan Poe - “The man of the crowd” which was written by Edgar Allan Poe in , is a tale that awakens the curiosity of the reader and implants vivid images of the walking people alongside the coffee shop where the narrator is sitting.
Sartre Condemnation to Freedom Essay Condemnation to Freedom In Sartre’s world of Existentialism, the responsibility of the entirety of our actions, as well as of the outcome of any given situation, falls on the individual alone.