Introduction: Emotions also clearly contain thoughts.
1 Shame and Disgust: The Gap Between Practice and Theory
2 How to be emotionless?
3 Two problematic emotions

Chapter 1: Emotions and Law
1 Appeal to emotion
2 Emotions and Beliefs, Emotions and Values
3 Emotions, Evaluation, and Moral Education
4 Emotions and the 'Rational Person': Manslaughter and Self-Defense
5 Emotions and Changing Social Norms
6. Reasonable Empathy: Compassion in the Sentencing Process
7 Emotions and Political Liberalism
8 How to Evaluate Emotions

Chapter 2: Disgust and Our Animal Body
1 Hatred and Law
2 Hate Supporters: Devlin, Cass, Miller, and Kehan
3 Cognitive Components of Disgust
4. The Difference Between Disgust and Indignation
5 Hate is a social weapon used to exclude a specific group.
6 Hatred, Rejection, and Civilization

Chapter 3: Hatred and Law
1 Disgust as Disgust, Disgust as a Legal Standard
2. Hate and Criminals: The Defense of 'Homosexual Provocation'
3. Disgust and the 'Average Person': Obscenity
4. Disgust as a Basis of Illegality: Sodomy and Necrophilia
5. Hate and Obstruction of Life Act
6. Disgust and the Jury: A 'Horrific and Inhumane' Murder
Chapter 4: Engraving on the Face: Shame and Stigma
1. A flushed face
2 Primal Shame, Narcissism, and the 'Golden Age'
3. Rejection of Imperfection: Case B
4 Emotions Associated with Shame: Humiliation and Embarrassment
5 Emotions Associated with Shame: Disgust, Guilt, Depression, and Anger
6 Is constructive shame possible?
7 Stigma and Branding: Shame in Social Life

Chapter 5 Should we shame citizens?
1 Shame and the 'facilitating environment'
2 Shaming Punishment: Dignity and Narcissistic Indignation
3 Moral Panics: Gay Sex and 'Antagonism'
4 Moral Panics and Crime: Anti-Gang Loitering Laws
5. Mill's conclusion reached through different routes

Chapter 6: Protecting Citizens from Shame
1. Creating a Facilitative Environment
2 Shame and a decent standard of living
3. Anti-discrimination, hate crimes
4 Shame and Personal Privacy
5 Shame and Disability

Bullying, the disabled, pornography, sexual minorities, irregular workers, racism, disclosure of criminals' personal information...
What role do 'emotions' play whenever human rights issues arise?
The Politics of Emotions by Martha Nussbaum, a leading intellectual of our time.

A pure legal world, free from emotions, is not possible.
However, unlike anger or fear, disgust and shame can be used as institutional foundations to block individual respect and freedom.
In conclusion, Nussbaum concludes that we must reduce unequal and hierarchical social relationships by promoting “the ability to enjoy interdependent relationships rather than dominating ones” and “the ability to recognize the imperfection and finiteness of oneself and others.”

Kim Young-ran (Professor, Sogang University Law School)

A masterpiece by Martha Nussbaum, a philosopher of deep reflection, warm empathy, and shining insight.
In this imperfect world we live in, to achieve equality, respect, and reciprocity rather than discrimination, exclusion, and oppression, we must confront and confront the emotions that operate and exert influence behind the laws and institutions.
This book will serve as a philosophical foundation for achieving the "emotional democratization" we desperately need after "institutional democratization."

―Cho Kuk (Professor, Seoul National University Law School)

The mentality of defining and rejecting the weak as 'abnormal'
It reveals its source and warns us of the violence inherent within us.

Did you know that much of our society's legal system is based on emotions like disgust and shame? According to Martha Nussbaum, a world-renowned legal and political philosopher, emotions, as a collection of beliefs, can serve as the basis for public judgment.
However, Nussbaum argues that only these 'disgusts' and 'shame' should be excluded.
This is because these two emotions are likely to be used to reject others, as they involve a desire to hide the fundamental weakness of human beings.
In other words, it can be expanded and reproduced as an unfair logic only for the strong who confirm their existence by destroying the weak.


I believe that the use of the category of "normal" to label deviant people should be understood as a natural consequence of a primal shame that affects us all to some degree.
We all know that the inordinate need of childhood to have complete control over the source of good things is often unmet in a variety of ways.
We also have a nostalgic longing for the blissful infancy of becoming one with the womb or breast, and so we need something to provide stability or completeness in its place.
So people who call themselves 'normal' find this security in the idea that they belong to a good group that is ordinary and lacks nothing in all aspects around them.
Normal people find solace and the illusion of stability by defining certain types of people as perfect and good and surrounding themselves with such people.
The idea of ​​normality acts like a surrogate womb, covering up the intrusive stimuli from a world of difference.

―From Chapter 4, “Carved on the Face: Shame and Stigma”

The philosophy of world-renowned scholar Nussbaum begins with Aristotle's "political animal" and focuses on the "vulnerability" of humans as "animals," and argues that we must be wary of emotions that hide such vulnerability.
Emotions stemming from narcissism, which deny human imperfection, distinguish between normal and abnormal, and seek to exclude others, destroy the values ​​pursued by liberal democratic society.
Drawing on a wealth of case law and a comprehensive overview of the major theories of Western political philosophy, "Disgust and Shame" will provide the most fundamental basis for all public judgments that may arise in an increasingly complex multicultural society.


Only when we understand humans as beings
Will we ever have a society where everyone is treated equally?

Humans are beings in which the thoughts of the head and the desires of the body interact with each other, and the animalistic body we possess should not be considered an insulting and shameful body, but should be given human dignity.
Martha Nussbaum, in contrast to communitarians who emphasize the gregarious nature of humans in Aristotle's 'Political Animal', points out that humans are also finite beings with 'desires'.
That is why I believe that we are all so imperfect and vulnerable human beings, and that is precisely why we must respect and care for others.


But the emotions of disgust and shame exclude the fundamental fact that humans have an animal body.
This is not to say that emotions should be excluded from all areas of law.
In reality, it is neither possible nor advisable to exclude emotions from the law.
However, we are wary of emotions that are difficult to trust as guides for human behavior, especially shame, disgust, and jealousy, because they risk giving rise to prejudice and social stigma without a valid basis.


If you look into your own emotions and inner self, you will find that you are very weak and in need of understanding and attention from others.
In this sense, respecting humanity means acknowledging that everyone lives as a fragile being amidst the uncertainties of life.
Furthermore, a dignified society can be said to be one that does not deny this humanity, but rather provides a 'facilitating environment' so that the 'capabilities' of individuals can be expressed.

―From the translator's note

Therefore, we must be wary of communitarianism that is bound by traditional social norms, fails to recognize differences, and promotes social stigma by distinguishing between normal and abnormal. We must also oppose utilitarian liberalism (based on the theory of the social contract) that does not view humans as ends in themselves but as means to social progress.
Martha Nussbaum presents the liberal view of humanity as one in which we all have degenerative bodies that will one day die, and that we are all disabled beings who need help from others.


Professor Kwak Jun-hyeok says that Nussbaum's argument, which pursues a universal theory of 'human flourishing' that can flexibly respond to the diversity of life while asserting the heterogeneity and incomparability of values, is "a new form of universalism that is neither cultural relativism nor metaphysical essentialism that destroys diversity by insisting on absolute truth."


Not 'hatred' that regards differences as abnormal
The emotion of "anger" against injustice should be the criterion for judgment.

Martha Nussbaum says that a law that excludes emotions is undesirable and unthinkable.
Therefore, it is important to carefully examine the cognitive content contained in each emotion and determine whether it is suitable as a legal basis.
Emotions are not simply physical reactions or emotional sensations; they are a collection of beliefs and involve evaluative judgments about important objects.
By analyzing disgust and shame based on this interpretation, Martha Nussbaum argues that in a liberal society that respects human dignity, the emotions of disgust and shame should not have a legal role.
“Because these two emotions commonly involve cognitive judgments and desires to hide and deny one’s humanity, they are likely to be used to ostracize groups in vulnerable positions within society.”

For example, one of the popular sentiments that drives retributive justice for heinous crimes is aversion to criminals.
People treat horrific murderers and child molesters like 'human garbage' or 'filthy insects'.
When a heinous crime occurs, the criminal's 'abnormality' is emphasized to hide his own human weaknesses.
But Nussbaum says we should be angry about the wrongdoings of criminals, not hate them.
Hatred does not entail the idea that the other person is also a being with equal civic status, and it prevents us from reflecting on our own weaknesses and problems.

―From the translator's note

“Abomination, more than anything else, serves to conceal facts about ourselves that we find difficult to confront every day.” That is why Nussbaum opposes punishing certain crimes more severely simply because they are particularly abominable.


We must carefully distinguish between people and their actions, and condemn them for the bad or harmful things they do.
However, respect for them as human beings must be maintained in that they can grow and change.

―From “Disgust and Our Animal Bodies”

Feelings of disgust and anger are often seen in the public's reaction to politicians' corruption.
Through various examples, the author explains that “anger tends to be directed toward resistance and constructive engagement, whereas disgust tends to lead to escape and abandonment.”


I want you to remember that anger is a response to harm or injury, and is intended to right an injustice.
I would like to argue that guilt arises in certain cases where the person who has done wrong is oneself.
Guilt is a type of self-punishing anger that arises from the perception that one has done something wrong or harmful.
Shame focuses on flaws or imperfections and on certain aspects of the person feeling the emotion, whereas guilt focuses on an action (or the fact that one desired to do something).
Guilt is not extended to the actor as a whole, as the actor is seen as being completely inadequate.

―From “Shame and Stigma”

The feeling of 'shame' that promotes a culture of stigmatization
Incompatible with a liberal society

Shame implies that we expect ourselves to be perfect, but that we are weak and inadequate.
Drawing on the object relations theory of psychoanalysis, Nussbaum explains that people generally try to relieve this anxiety by labeling others as deviant and defining themselves as 'normal'.
This is also why they want to create a 'moral panic' and shame certain groups of people.


Nussbaum argues that this primal shame is not only normatively inadequate because it embodies the desire to be a complete being independent of others, but also unreliable as a legal basis because it is associated with an attitude that does not recognize the rights and needs of others.
That's why she opposes humiliating punishments, such as public disclosure of criminal records.
This punishment denies the equal human dignity of the person being punished.
Instead, he says, society should be one that protects citizens from shame and stigma.
A society that guarantees everyone the material conditions of life they need to live without being humiliated or stigmatized because of poverty, a society where people are not discriminated against because of sexual orientation that does not harm others, a society that recognizes that we all have disabilities and accepts people with physical or mental disabilities into the community.

―From the translator's note

Shame is also closely related to 'narcissism', a prime example of which can be seen in the strong control parents have over their children.


Nonetheless, because shame originates in a primal need to be complete and in complete control, it is likely to be linked to denigration of others and some form of aggression (violently denouncing any obstacle that stands in the way of the ego's narcissistic project).
Even in properly induced shame, there is always a lurking narcissism and its associated aggression.

―From “Shame and Stigma”

An example is parents who, under the guise of encouraging their children to be hard-working, try to control their children and mold them into their ideal self-image.
So while shame may be a polite expression of criticism that arises in a loving or friendly relationship, it may also contain a subtle message of narcissistic control that undervalues ​​the very humanity of the person experiencing it, as neither love nor friendship is entirely immune to the dangers of narcissism.

―From “Shame and Stigma”

Much of human progress has been made when 'unusual' people lived in 'unusual' ways.
Nonetheless, most societies have a view of what is 'common' as 'normal'.
“At this time, the common thing becomes a target that can brand other things,” and thus it exerts its typical function.


The philosopher is a 'lawyer for humanity'
Humanities, which help us understand humanity, are the foundation of all academic disciplines and professions.

The legal profession, which has a significant impact on both the public and private spheres of human life, is still home to a wealth of talented individuals.
But to create a better society, we need, above all, people who can consider the complexities of life.
To do so, it must be based on a humanistic understanding of what kind of being a human is.
As Nussbaum emphasized in her previous work, Beyond Study to Education, she also emphasizes the importance of humanities education.
For example, the court should cultivate responsible citizens who recognize the impact of the law, rather than experts who mechanically apply legal knowledge.
To do so, Nussbaum emphasizes three key elements in legal education.
First, you need the ability to reflectively examine your own thoughts.
Second, it is the ability to think from a comparative perspective on a global scale, rather than from a nationalistic perspective.
Third, it is a narrative imagination that can empathize with the plight of others.


And the reading experience of reading Nussbaum, a humanist whose research ranges widely and deeply from ancient philosophy and classical literature to political philosophy and legal philosophy, is itself an opportunity to learn how to solve complex problems using reasoning skills and narrative imagination.
Ultimately, this book helps us gain a deeper understanding of humanity.
The translator says this about the implications that Nussbaum gives to Korean readers:


It is easy to see that people's aggression is growing in Korean society today.
The bigger problem is that this aggression is not expressed as anger against an unjust social structure, but mainly in the form of contempt and violence directed at those who have been pushed out of competition or are weaker than themselves.
This is the result of a social structure that overemphasizes competition and fosters feelings of inferiority in individuals.
A society in which individuals bear full responsibility for the outcome of competition despite the extremely unequal conditions under which competition takes place fosters a social psychology that worships strength and power and fears softness and weakness.
Considering Nussbaum's analysis that aggression reflects a desire to conceal one's own weaknesses, this suggests that there are many individuals in Korean society who do not have their difficulties understood.

―From the Translator's Note

Hate crimes: Do they commit them out of a strong conviction? Absolutely not.
Nussbaum argues that because any social group seeks to shame and stigmatize people and behaviors that are peculiar, the law should go beyond simply refraining from engaging in such behavior and provide a space where those who are shamed can escape the gaze of others.
Because when certain groups attack the weak, it is because they simply recognize that “the law will not protect them.”


According to Gary David Comstock, who has extensively studied violence against gays, most perpetrators of violence are troublesome young men with no specific political agenda.
They just want to pick on people the police won't protect and beat them up.
They do not have a firm belief that gays should be eradicated, they choose them because they are gay and commit hate crimes based on this belief.
So if society signals that they really do take this behavior seriously, at least a lot of them will probably try to do something else.

―From “6 Protecting Citizens from Shame”