In ancient Athens, Socrates was sentenced to death by a democratic jury for "corrupting the youth” and impiety. Today, we have the court of public opinion.
Great piece here. I like the balance that was struck between “Who gets to decide what’s acceptable or unacceptable?” and “In some cases, it could be warranted.”
Excellent piece and questioning about the role of the justice system, both the official and unofficial ones. There is always this desire to go behind the vengeance and deterrent goal of punishment in a system of justice, and it passes, as you said, by engaging in a discourse. But the real challenge, admit by all since the Ancient Philosophers, is to keep the quality of the discourse high and without artifice and masquerade. You can think of Milton philosophy that freedom of speech should allow the greater truth to be known from the confrontation of individual truths, but we can see in today's social and traditional media, that's not enough. As long as winning your argument is more important than discovering the truth, the debate has a high chance of underserved manipulation, volunteer or not. And if the truth is challenging values or self-worth of one or more individuals, you can even more expect the rational to let place to the emotional. And in a society that assert viability in terms of profitability and attention capture, emotion is king for engagement, through sound bites, single frame captures and out of context citations that destroy the subtilities necessary for a constructive discourse. And we shouldn't not forget the role of wealth, of the power to be heard among them. It is imcredible to heard many wealthy personalities complaining about how they are being cancelled on so many national television channels and public tribunes. The irony is comfortably installed there.
So, overall, although we can discuss all details about the nature, means and goals of retribution, our argument will always be flawed if a due and fair process hasn't be established beforehand. And in a world where such fair process would always be some unrealistic ideals, where errors have been made and will be made, it's important to admit our limitations, our capacity to err, and apply it to our choice of retribution and add some humility and compassion in our answer.
Great piece, and a lot of very fascinating questions come up here.
One thing I wanted to start out mentioning is that I learned while listening to a Great Courses lecture series on Ancient Greece last year (one of many) that at least some scholars believe that Socrates was actually executed not for impiety and corrupting the youth, as the formal charges against him stated, but rather as part of a backlash against those who had helped the Thirty Tyrants. Quick summary of the history: Athens lost the Peloponnesian War around 405 BC and victorious Sparta installed an oligarchic system known as the Thirty Tyrants to rule Athens after that. Socrates taught Critias, one of the very worst of the Thirty Tyrants, as well as another tyrant Alcibiades. Some hypothesize that his execution in 399 BC 5 years after that was more so due to his complicity with the Thirty Tyrants than his impiety; he had, after all, been teaching similarly impious material for almost his entire life, only to be executed for it in old age. I don't know which is true of course but thought I'd share this alternative possibility I learned about last year. Doesn't seem totally implausible as a true proximate cause to me as a non-expert.
Otherwise I think you hit on all the tensions. I have always found it fascinating how democracy places everything in the wisdom of the masses to elect executive and legislative officials and in some circumstances judges too, yet it also attempts to secure the rights of minorities against "the tyranny of the majority". I wouldn't want to live in a country where if 51% of people want to deny rights to minorities then that then happens, but how exactly do we justify that if we simultaneously argue that legitimacy comes from winning votes. It's a tough one but I like the system we have.
Bravo; another excellent essay. One minor caveat would be to avoid confusing the intensity of the social media backlash with the number of people who support it. Social justice warriors are very good at inflating the attention they receive by using exaggeration, misinformation, and outright defamation to stoke public outrage.
In my opinion, more often than not, the outcomes are predicted by the actions (or failures to act) of administrations rather than characteristics of either the “victims” or their targets. Administrative failures to protect academic freedom and due process can be due to mere cowardly incompetence but sometimes reflect willful collaboration to eliminate those who question their authority or the party line.
There are many examples of this in Professors Speak Out; The truth about campus investigations. (Nicholas H. Wolfinger, Ed.) Washington, D.C.: Academica Press. For those interested, the Martin Center will be hosting an hour-long zoom session: Webinar Registration - Zoom Professors Speak Out; May 22 (4-5pm EDT).
Thank you for this reflective, thought provoking piece.
Great piece here. I like the balance that was struck between “Who gets to decide what’s acceptable or unacceptable?” and “In some cases, it could be warranted.”
Excellent piece and questioning about the role of the justice system, both the official and unofficial ones. There is always this desire to go behind the vengeance and deterrent goal of punishment in a system of justice, and it passes, as you said, by engaging in a discourse. But the real challenge, admit by all since the Ancient Philosophers, is to keep the quality of the discourse high and without artifice and masquerade. You can think of Milton philosophy that freedom of speech should allow the greater truth to be known from the confrontation of individual truths, but we can see in today's social and traditional media, that's not enough. As long as winning your argument is more important than discovering the truth, the debate has a high chance of underserved manipulation, volunteer or not. And if the truth is challenging values or self-worth of one or more individuals, you can even more expect the rational to let place to the emotional. And in a society that assert viability in terms of profitability and attention capture, emotion is king for engagement, through sound bites, single frame captures and out of context citations that destroy the subtilities necessary for a constructive discourse. And we shouldn't not forget the role of wealth, of the power to be heard among them. It is imcredible to heard many wealthy personalities complaining about how they are being cancelled on so many national television channels and public tribunes. The irony is comfortably installed there.
So, overall, although we can discuss all details about the nature, means and goals of retribution, our argument will always be flawed if a due and fair process hasn't be established beforehand. And in a world where such fair process would always be some unrealistic ideals, where errors have been made and will be made, it's important to admit our limitations, our capacity to err, and apply it to our choice of retribution and add some humility and compassion in our answer.
Great piece, and a lot of very fascinating questions come up here.
One thing I wanted to start out mentioning is that I learned while listening to a Great Courses lecture series on Ancient Greece last year (one of many) that at least some scholars believe that Socrates was actually executed not for impiety and corrupting the youth, as the formal charges against him stated, but rather as part of a backlash against those who had helped the Thirty Tyrants. Quick summary of the history: Athens lost the Peloponnesian War around 405 BC and victorious Sparta installed an oligarchic system known as the Thirty Tyrants to rule Athens after that. Socrates taught Critias, one of the very worst of the Thirty Tyrants, as well as another tyrant Alcibiades. Some hypothesize that his execution in 399 BC 5 years after that was more so due to his complicity with the Thirty Tyrants than his impiety; he had, after all, been teaching similarly impious material for almost his entire life, only to be executed for it in old age. I don't know which is true of course but thought I'd share this alternative possibility I learned about last year. Doesn't seem totally implausible as a true proximate cause to me as a non-expert.
Otherwise I think you hit on all the tensions. I have always found it fascinating how democracy places everything in the wisdom of the masses to elect executive and legislative officials and in some circumstances judges too, yet it also attempts to secure the rights of minorities against "the tyranny of the majority". I wouldn't want to live in a country where if 51% of people want to deny rights to minorities then that then happens, but how exactly do we justify that if we simultaneously argue that legitimacy comes from winning votes. It's a tough one but I like the system we have.
Bravo; another excellent essay. One minor caveat would be to avoid confusing the intensity of the social media backlash with the number of people who support it. Social justice warriors are very good at inflating the attention they receive by using exaggeration, misinformation, and outright defamation to stoke public outrage.
In my opinion, more often than not, the outcomes are predicted by the actions (or failures to act) of administrations rather than characteristics of either the “victims” or their targets. Administrative failures to protect academic freedom and due process can be due to mere cowardly incompetence but sometimes reflect willful collaboration to eliminate those who question their authority or the party line.
There are many examples of this in Professors Speak Out; The truth about campus investigations. (Nicholas H. Wolfinger, Ed.) Washington, D.C.: Academica Press. For those interested, the Martin Center will be hosting an hour-long zoom session: Webinar Registration - Zoom Professors Speak Out; May 22 (4-5pm EDT).
That's an excellent point! Actually, two.
Protect yourself at all times, call that an answer by one who survived an attempt on their life.
Eye for eye is the law of the jungle which is more prominent unfortunately it seems for specific nobodies.