Ethics + Logic = Justice
Ethics + Logic = Justice
Lessons From “12 Angry Men” (1957)
Image by L.E. Wilson from RedBubble based on work by Sang Hyun Cho from Pixabay
Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.
— Voltaire
First comes ethics. You must have some guiding principle that helps you determine what is the more virtuous path, that is, what is the more decent, honorable, or noble thing to do. Without this guidance, there is confusion, chaos, and an inability to decide what is right and what is wrong. If you have no standards to help you figure this out, you are not morally ready to take on any kind of responsibility.
Then, in order to be effective and actually put an ethical principle into practice, you must apply logic and reason. No good or useful outcome can come from a course of action that is not grounded in reality or denies fundamental truths. Again, without an anchor to how the universe actually works, there is confusion, chaos, and an inability to see what is right or beneficial and what is wrong or harmful.
12 Angry Men (1957) is a drama directed by Sidney Lumet about twelve jurors who are tasked with rendering an unanimous verdict on a criminal case—premeditated murder in the first degree, which means the death penalty for the accused if they find him guilty.
Life Lesson: “Doubt is the beginning, not the end, of wisdom.”
— George Iles (1852-1942)
🍿Movie Scene Link (movie quote)
But if you have an ethical principle guiding you, such as what Henry Fonda’s “Juror #8” character demonstrates in the 1957 courtroom drama, 12 Angry Men, and likewise have the ability to use logic and reason to come closer to understanding the truth of a situation, as the twelve men do in the movie, then you have created the necessary components needed to bring about justice.
Specifically, Juror #8 is intrinsically motivated to persuade his fellow jurors to examine the evidence carefully and thoughtfully in order to be fair to the defendant. He is steadfast in behaving in this virtuous manner even if it means that he stands alone, and even if he is viciously attacked by those who want him to conform to their judgement. His integrity, patience, and strength emanate from having clear ethical standards.
But that’s not enough. His only avenue to putting his ethical principles into practice is to use logic and reason to persuade the other jurors to question the arguments they heard during the trial and to think for themselves. Without his ability to break down the different pieces of evidence and examine them vigorously, his ethical stance would amount to little more than speechmaking.
Instead, this combination of ethics plus logic leads to a greater good—justice. And of course it must be so. If virtue isn’t a guiding force, then we would not seek justice. We would just let bad things happen, turn a blind eye, and be indifferent to injustice. At the same time, if there is no fidelity to reality, then our beliefs couldn’t result in the implementation of justice since it’s impossible to enact change in the real world while being misled by delusions.
So justice can only come about from a willingness to be fair—to hold ourselves to a high ethical standard that involves being open minded, free from prejudice, and with appropriate empathy—as well as an ability to accept the reality that is uncovered by using logic and reason.
The movie 12 Angry Men does a brilliant job of revealing this truth to us, hence it is worthy of being studied for the wisdom it contains, which includes an even deeper revelation about justice. It turns out that this movie is an application of an ancient Jewish law that deemed an unanimous guilty verdict as a sign that something has gone wrong in the process because without dissent, without doubt, there is no justice.
In other words, groupthink is not justice, mob rule is not justice, hence the Talmud ruled that if everyone agreed on someone’s guilt then the defendant would be acquitted since it indicated that the defendant was not given a rigorous enough defense and/or that the judges colluded to arrive at the verdict, which would be unjust.
The ethical principle underlying this law was to not punish an innocent person even if in the process a guilty person would go free. Of course the American legal system holds this same belief, but unlike this ancient law, the US requires an unanimous verdict in criminal trials as is shown in the movie.
It’s rare to find a film that hues so closely to reality and with eloquent artistry educates us not only by holding a mirror up to us so we can see who we truly are, but also by showing us how the world we live in can work in a more ethical and just manner.
This is a great movie, brilliantly acted and written. It’s a masterpiece and a masterclass on justice and the importance of understanding reasonable doubt.
To watch it is to be enlightened and to appreciate the profound importance of dissent:
If there were no room for doubt, there would be no room for me.
Visit the moviewise catalogue—a searchable database of one sentence movie summaries, movie quotes, and movie wisdom—for movie recommendations.
Also visit the moviewise store. Get a t-shirt, bag, or pillow with your favorite #LifeLesson from a movie. Reply to this or leave a comment below to make a request.
I taught the play itself, not the film. I noted the steady progression as first one, then another realizes that they are far from "beyond reasonable doubt." I also stressed the conflict between the two principle jurors, and the emotional baggage of Juror #3 (vis-a-vis his own son). Then I mentioned the ethnicity of the defendant and tied that into today's criminal "justice" system (i.e., minorities get a fair trial less frequently -- and this was the 1950s!). I also introduced the concept of projection, and -- of course -- shared my own story (in considerably more detail). I enjoyed it; a fair number of the students did, also.
Thanks for sharing this. I taught *Twelve Angry Men* on several occasions, and I was always impressed by the integrity of Juror #8. Ironically, I found myself in a similar position the last time I served on a jury.
The defendant was charged with operating a motorcycle under the influence of alcohol. Without belaboring all the details, I shall explain that (a) although he had consumed some beer, his blood alcohol level was still clearly BELOW the state's limits, and (b) although he had failed two field sobriety tests, both tests were specifically contra-indicated for a man who was both quite obese and over 60 years of age, and the officer who conducted the tests had misled him about where he was expected to walk (since the road curved). Nevertheless, everyone else on the jury wanted to convict.
I faced immense hostility, which eventually escalated to threats, but I stood my ground. The judge declared a mistrial, and the case was not continued.
"Justice" is almost nonexistent in this country, anyway, thanks to judicial ideology and the laws themselves. At the very least, those called to jury duty should learn from the example Juror #8 and seek to emulate him.