![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
blueinkedfrostThis is a quote from the Honourable Frederic R. Coudert, in a debate against Robert Ingersoll. The context is why Ingersoll should be punished for expressing his agnostic beliefs.
A word is an act—an act of the tongue; and why should my tongue go unpunished, and I who wield it mercilessly toward those who are weaker than I, escape, if my arm is to be punished when I use it tyrannously? Whom would you punish for the murder of Desdemona—is it Iago, or Othello? Who was the villain, who was the criminal, who deserved the scaffold—who but free speech? Iago exercised free speech. He poisoned the ear of Othello and nerved his arm and Othello was the murderer—but Iago went scot free. That was a word.
I thought this was interesting from a literary / general judicial point of view! Not least because it ignores the actual plot of Othello.
Iago is going to be punished heavily at the end of Othello, so Coudert's literary point is invalid. In the play, Iago murdered Emilia and stabbed Cassio. Also, Emilia testified extensively against Iago before she was murdered. (Emilia's testimony would not be admissible in some jurisdictions and time periods, given that she is his wife, but her murder speaks for itself.) Case closed! He's guilty! Iago is sent down for murder.
LODOVICO.
--Gratiano--To you, lord governor,
Remains the censure of this hellish villain;
The time, the place, the torture,--O, enforce it!
But Iago's physical crimes aren't the ones we think of when we hear his name. They're not the ones we fear him for.
Let's mutilate and spindle the Bard's work to make a point. Suppose that Iago's only crimes were the main crimes associated with his character - blackening Desdemona's reputation to make Othello murder her and kill himself, and manipulating Roderigo and Cassio to duel each other. Let's say these crimes all went as planned: Othello murders Desdemona and commits suicide, Roderigo and Cassio kill each other, and Emilia can't or doesn't give any evidence.
Regarding the duel, that would be directly inciting violence. Can this be proven by fair standards in a court of law? Yes - there were writen documents about the arranged private combat.
LODOVICO.
Sir, you shall understand what hath befall'n,
Which, as I think, you know not. Here is a letter
Found in the pocket of the slain Roderigo,
And here another: the one of them imports
The death of Cassio to be undertook
By Roderigo.
OTHELLO.
O villain!
Iago is guilty of this crime. Is it better for society if we require a standard of proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? Yes, because we cannot convict the innocent. Is it better for society that we assume that encouraging violence by speech is less serious than committing violence by actions? Yes, becuse we cannot read minds; we can't know what the person purportedly encouraging really meant to do.
Blackening Desdemona's reputation is slander, and deserves a standard punishment for slander. (Generally a civil penalty rather than criminal.) We also require for slander that the insinuation be proven false. And this is difficult: Desdemona is dead, Othello is dead, and let's pretend that Cassio is also dead and that Emilia didn't or couldn't testify. It can't be proven that Iago lied; it's hard to prove that Desdemona never did anything with Cassio when they were friends to each other and they are now both dead (in this alternative universe). Which is tragic and unfortunate, but we have standards of proof for a reason. There is also a good reason why there is generally a lesser punishment for defamation than for murder under the law, and why defamation is generally civil rather than criminal.
Manipulators like Iago are frightening. Agatha Christie also had a go at depicting one in the Poirot novel CURTAIN. We hope never to run into one. Shakespeare's art was very powerful in this. While his actual Iago committed one blatant murder and one attempted murder, what we most fear from Iago-like characters is their ability to cause horrific crimes whilst staying within the letter of the law. But any attempt to distort the letter of the law to chase down the Iagos would condemn a huge number of innocent people. In terms of reality, psychology is an extremely complicated discipline and there are many factors that the wouldbe manipulator cannot reckon with. I think that applying too much of a realist lens to Shakespeare's plot, particularly a contemporary realist lens, makes Othello himself look like yet another misogynistic murderer who thinks that his wife is his property. Iagos are wonderful fictional creations, but they are much more difficult in real life.
Where the fiction plays with Ingersoll's life and work is, of course, very little! Ingersoll's opinions about God are not nearly as dangerous as Iago's incitement to murder, or the speech of bigoted demagogues trying to stir up hatred and bloodshed and persecution. Ingersoll's life and words are consistently and completely against violence and hatred. And even in the case of people who behave like Iago, it's better for society to punish only their proven crimes that cause direct harm. The case Ingersoll makes for free speech is valid.
I enjoy Ingersoll's work in general. Project Gutenberg has a good selection of his lectures. Sometimes, he writes beautiful lines:
Words have been born of hatred and revenge, of love and self sacrifice and fear, of agony and joy the stars have fashioned them, and in them mingled the darkness and the dawn. - Lectures Vol. 1
Surely it is worth something to feel that there are no priests, no popes, no parties, no governments, no kings, no gods, to whom your intellect can be compelled to pay reluctant homage. Surely it is a joy to know that all the cruel ingenuity of bigotry can devise no prison, no dungeon, no cell in which for one instant to confine a thought; that ideas cannot be dislocated by racks, nor crushed in iron boots, nor burned with fire. Surely it is sublime to think that the brain is a castle, and that within its curious bastions and winding halls the soul, in spite of all words and all beings, is the supreme sovereign of itself. - Individuality
Ingersoll is a freethinker of the earnestly literal-minded sort, the type which refuses to believe in God because the story of Jonah and the whale is logically impossible. I can't help but feel that literal-minded religious believers play a certain role in creating this kind of creating this kind of agnostic/atheist. Faith must be substantiated by facts and be no longer faith. And this analogy by Ingersoll in this particular volume makes a very good point about this reasoning:
You remember the story told about the Mexican who believed that his country was the only one in the world, and said so. The priest told him that there was another country where a man lived who was eleven or twelve feet high, that made the whole world, and if he denied it, when that man got hold of him he would not leave a whole bone in his body. But he denied it. He was one of those men who would not believe further than his vision extended.
So one day in his boat, he was rocking away when the wind suddenly arose and he was blown out of sight of his home. After several days he was blown so far that he saw the shores of another country. Then he said, "My Lord; I am gone! I have been swearing all my life that there was no other country, and here it is!" So he did his best—paddled with what little strength he had left, reached the shore, and got out of his boat. Sure enough, there came down a man to meet him about twelve feet high. The poor little wretch was frightened almost to death, so he said to the tall man as he saw him coming down: "Mister, whoever you are, I denied your existence—I did not believe you lived; I swore there was no such country as this; but I see I was mistaken, and I am gone. You are going to kill me, and the quicker you do it the better and get me out of my misery. Do it now!"
The great man just looked at the little fellow, and said nothing, till he asked, "What are you going to do with me, because over in that other country I denied your existence?" "What am I going to do with you?" said the supposed God. "Now that you have got here, if you behave yourself I am going to treat you well."
Even if it is wrong to try to hold no beliefs without evidence of reality, surely a transcendence beyond (if there is one) would forgive attempts at reason.
A word is an act—an act of the tongue; and why should my tongue go unpunished, and I who wield it mercilessly toward those who are weaker than I, escape, if my arm is to be punished when I use it tyrannously? Whom would you punish for the murder of Desdemona—is it Iago, or Othello? Who was the villain, who was the criminal, who deserved the scaffold—who but free speech? Iago exercised free speech. He poisoned the ear of Othello and nerved his arm and Othello was the murderer—but Iago went scot free. That was a word.
I thought this was interesting from a literary / general judicial point of view! Not least because it ignores the actual plot of Othello.
Iago is going to be punished heavily at the end of Othello, so Coudert's literary point is invalid. In the play, Iago murdered Emilia and stabbed Cassio. Also, Emilia testified extensively against Iago before she was murdered. (Emilia's testimony would not be admissible in some jurisdictions and time periods, given that she is his wife, but her murder speaks for itself.) Case closed! He's guilty! Iago is sent down for murder.
LODOVICO.
--Gratiano--To you, lord governor,
Remains the censure of this hellish villain;
The time, the place, the torture,--O, enforce it!
But Iago's physical crimes aren't the ones we think of when we hear his name. They're not the ones we fear him for.
Let's mutilate and spindle the Bard's work to make a point. Suppose that Iago's only crimes were the main crimes associated with his character - blackening Desdemona's reputation to make Othello murder her and kill himself, and manipulating Roderigo and Cassio to duel each other. Let's say these crimes all went as planned: Othello murders Desdemona and commits suicide, Roderigo and Cassio kill each other, and Emilia can't or doesn't give any evidence.
Regarding the duel, that would be directly inciting violence. Can this be proven by fair standards in a court of law? Yes - there were writen documents about the arranged private combat.
LODOVICO.
Sir, you shall understand what hath befall'n,
Which, as I think, you know not. Here is a letter
Found in the pocket of the slain Roderigo,
And here another: the one of them imports
The death of Cassio to be undertook
By Roderigo.
OTHELLO.
O villain!
Iago is guilty of this crime. Is it better for society if we require a standard of proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? Yes, because we cannot convict the innocent. Is it better for society that we assume that encouraging violence by speech is less serious than committing violence by actions? Yes, becuse we cannot read minds; we can't know what the person purportedly encouraging really meant to do.
Blackening Desdemona's reputation is slander, and deserves a standard punishment for slander. (Generally a civil penalty rather than criminal.) We also require for slander that the insinuation be proven false. And this is difficult: Desdemona is dead, Othello is dead, and let's pretend that Cassio is also dead and that Emilia didn't or couldn't testify. It can't be proven that Iago lied; it's hard to prove that Desdemona never did anything with Cassio when they were friends to each other and they are now both dead (in this alternative universe). Which is tragic and unfortunate, but we have standards of proof for a reason. There is also a good reason why there is generally a lesser punishment for defamation than for murder under the law, and why defamation is generally civil rather than criminal.
Manipulators like Iago are frightening. Agatha Christie also had a go at depicting one in the Poirot novel CURTAIN. We hope never to run into one. Shakespeare's art was very powerful in this. While his actual Iago committed one blatant murder and one attempted murder, what we most fear from Iago-like characters is their ability to cause horrific crimes whilst staying within the letter of the law. But any attempt to distort the letter of the law to chase down the Iagos would condemn a huge number of innocent people. In terms of reality, psychology is an extremely complicated discipline and there are many factors that the wouldbe manipulator cannot reckon with. I think that applying too much of a realist lens to Shakespeare's plot, particularly a contemporary realist lens, makes Othello himself look like yet another misogynistic murderer who thinks that his wife is his property. Iagos are wonderful fictional creations, but they are much more difficult in real life.
Where the fiction plays with Ingersoll's life and work is, of course, very little! Ingersoll's opinions about God are not nearly as dangerous as Iago's incitement to murder, or the speech of bigoted demagogues trying to stir up hatred and bloodshed and persecution. Ingersoll's life and words are consistently and completely against violence and hatred. And even in the case of people who behave like Iago, it's better for society to punish only their proven crimes that cause direct harm. The case Ingersoll makes for free speech is valid.
I enjoy Ingersoll's work in general. Project Gutenberg has a good selection of his lectures. Sometimes, he writes beautiful lines:
Words have been born of hatred and revenge, of love and self sacrifice and fear, of agony and joy the stars have fashioned them, and in them mingled the darkness and the dawn. - Lectures Vol. 1
Surely it is worth something to feel that there are no priests, no popes, no parties, no governments, no kings, no gods, to whom your intellect can be compelled to pay reluctant homage. Surely it is a joy to know that all the cruel ingenuity of bigotry can devise no prison, no dungeon, no cell in which for one instant to confine a thought; that ideas cannot be dislocated by racks, nor crushed in iron boots, nor burned with fire. Surely it is sublime to think that the brain is a castle, and that within its curious bastions and winding halls the soul, in spite of all words and all beings, is the supreme sovereign of itself. - Individuality
Ingersoll is a freethinker of the earnestly literal-minded sort, the type which refuses to believe in God because the story of Jonah and the whale is logically impossible. I can't help but feel that literal-minded religious believers play a certain role in creating this kind of creating this kind of agnostic/atheist. Faith must be substantiated by facts and be no longer faith. And this analogy by Ingersoll in this particular volume makes a very good point about this reasoning:
You remember the story told about the Mexican who believed that his country was the only one in the world, and said so. The priest told him that there was another country where a man lived who was eleven or twelve feet high, that made the whole world, and if he denied it, when that man got hold of him he would not leave a whole bone in his body. But he denied it. He was one of those men who would not believe further than his vision extended.
So one day in his boat, he was rocking away when the wind suddenly arose and he was blown out of sight of his home. After several days he was blown so far that he saw the shores of another country. Then he said, "My Lord; I am gone! I have been swearing all my life that there was no other country, and here it is!" So he did his best—paddled with what little strength he had left, reached the shore, and got out of his boat. Sure enough, there came down a man to meet him about twelve feet high. The poor little wretch was frightened almost to death, so he said to the tall man as he saw him coming down: "Mister, whoever you are, I denied your existence—I did not believe you lived; I swore there was no such country as this; but I see I was mistaken, and I am gone. You are going to kill me, and the quicker you do it the better and get me out of my misery. Do it now!"
The great man just looked at the little fellow, and said nothing, till he asked, "What are you going to do with me, because over in that other country I denied your existence?" "What am I going to do with you?" said the supposed God. "Now that you have got here, if you behave yourself I am going to treat you well."
Even if it is wrong to try to hold no beliefs without evidence of reality, surely a transcendence beyond (if there is one) would forgive attempts at reason.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2013-07-23 03:04 pm (UTC)Not just Jonah and the whale; as he points out in several of his works, the Bible is full from beginning to end of impossibilities, stupidities, and the most appalling evil described as good. I regard Ingersoll as one of the greatest men who has ever lived.
no subject
Date: 2013-07-23 08:31 pm (UTC)I was told as a child that six-day-creationism must be true for the Bible to be true. It, and other biblical events, are false/metaphorical/cruel/weird/probably didn't happen. This is apt to turn the young fundamentalist with a regard for truth into something of a fundamentalist atheist.
I prefer for faith to be substantiated by facts - but that therefore makes it not-faith. Ken Ham the creationist Christian also insists that his faith is substantiated by facts (and is mendaciously, aggressively, deliberately ignorant the whole time). But I can't ignore that there are religious believers who don't come from that framework, even as I think that faith is just another word for ignoring Occam's razor.