In her book, Poetic Justice, American philosopher and Professor of Law and Ethics Martha Nussbaum writes that when we read narrative, “we are, in effect, being constituted by the novel as judges of a certain sort.” (Nussbaum 83) She believes that the ideal judge is not one who can remove all emotion from his reasoning, but instead one who can serve as what Adam Smith called a “judicious spectator”; “capable of entering imaginatively into the lives of distant others and (having) emotions related to that participation.” (Nussbaum xvi) According to Nussbaum, this emotional attachment encourages an ethically vital respect for the individual humanity of the people involved in the case while mitigating the obvious risks of allowing judges to act
…show more content…
During the argument in court, all parties agreed that Adam was an intelligent and mature boy; the controversy was around whether or not his maturity entitled him to the right to refuse treatment (McEwan 91). Upon visiting Adam, however, Fiona draws a different conclusion from her own experiences with him than she could have based only on the facts presented in court. She is able to find in the full narrative a pattern that is not evident in its components alone: the parties to the case were correct that Adam was mature and intelligent, but his perceived conviction and resolve are the consequence of the lack of an opportunity to consider any belief system but the one espoused by his religious community (McEwan 126). In other words, Adam is not aware of any viable alternatives to martyring himself for his religion and therefore should not be regarded as competent to decide to refuse the life-saving treatment. She also learns from spending time with him that his poetry and learning of the violin, touted by his parents as a sign of his maturity, are indicative of aspirations for a future that will likely never come if he is permitted to refuse the transfusions. It is based on this information that she decides to side with the hospital and force Adam to receive the
During the argument in court, all parties agreed that Adam was an intelligent and mature boy; the controversy was around whether or not his maturity entitled him to the right to refuse treatment (McEwan 91). Upon visiting Adam, however, Fiona draws a different conclusion from her own experiences with him than she could have based only on the facts presented in court. She is able to find in the full narrative a pattern that is not evident in its components alone: the parties to the case were correct that Adam was mature and intelligent, but his perceived conviction and resolve are the consequence of the lack of an opportunity to consider any belief system but the one espoused by his religious community (McEwan 126). In other words, Adam is not aware of any viable alternatives to martyring himself for his religion and therefore should not be regarded as competent to decide to refuse the life-saving treatment. She also learns from spending time with him that his poetry and learning of the violin, touted by his parents as a sign of his maturity, are indicative of aspirations for a future that will likely never come if he is permitted to refuse the transfusions. It is based on this information that she decides to side with the hospital and force Adam to receive the