Ira furor breuis est
“I’m not myself today.”
It seems that the florist shares the same opinion about Steve as me, that he’s still the same old Steve underlyingly. But Martin disagrees with him because Steve has chosen to be unfriendly. Martin then learns that Steve has been taking some hormones which make him more aggressively. This news makes Martin think that Steve probably is the same person as before, but he’s been chemically altered.[1]
Martin goes back to Steve to try and remonstrate and gets a basket of rotten fruit tipped over him, making a mess of his suit. Steve apologises and says that because of the pressures of business, he just hasn’t been himself. Should Martin forgive him or is this now a matter for the police?
§1. It is not Steve who should be on trial today, men of Athens, but those who were the cause of the change to his personality. Nonetheless, it was Steve who tipped a basket of rotten fruit over me, which resulted in a £25 dry cleaning bill.
§2. Formerly, Steve was noted for the amiability of his personality so that when I found that he was inclined to be rude and aggressive, I wondered whether he was, indeed, the same person whom I had once known. This can be attributed to two causes, as I shall outline in my opening statement.
§3. I asked the other shopkeepers about him, but they all replied that Steve was well-known for being ill-tempered. It was from the florist that I learnt he had taken an assertiveness class. Therefore, I am also indicting the teacher of that class on a charge of personality violation.
§4. It was from the chemist that I then learnt that Steve had been taking hormones to increase his aggressiveness. Now since the chemist merely sells licensed drugs and may not withhold those products from his customers which are freely available, whether he believes them to be detrimental or not, it would be improper of me to indict him. But it is the responsibility of the manufacturers of such drugs to clearly indicate the effects of the drug, which they do not do, as I shall show. Therefore, I am charging them with inadequate labelling of a drug called Confidunce™.
§5. Thus, gentlemen, you can see how it is that Steve, once polite, friendly and mild-mannered, has become rude, unfriendly and aggressive. Because of the damage that he did to my suit and the subsequent cost of having it cleaned, I am asking that he be fined £50, £25 for the cost and £25 as punitive damages; because of the changes to Steve’s personality, I am asking that the teacher of the assertiveness class be sent into exile and be deprived of his citizenship; and finally, I am asking that the company which manufactures Confidunce™ be fined £10,000,000.
§I. Was it those who are alleged to have altered Steve’s personality who should be here on trial today? Perhaps it ought to be, but I am not here to prosecute or defend them, but to defend Steve against the charge against him.
§II. Since we all have free will over ourselves at least and since we change as time passes, Martin was obvio0usly wrong to expect that his friend would necessarily be the same person that he was when the two were acquainted. Moreover, witnesses shall reveal that Martin’s personality has also changed since they first knew each other.
§III. It should be noted that the shopkeepers were stating their opinions about Steve’s personality, but not being experts in the field of personality, their description of his personality may not be strictly accurate because behaviour which might be described by some as rude and aggressive is actually assertive and confident; and I shall call expert witnesses to confirm this.
§IV. On the labelling of Confidunce™, I will not deny that the notice describing the effects of the drug may be small, but it is, in accordance with state-authorised guidelines and fully discloses the effects of the drug. Steve is not aggressive because of the hormones, but rather confident. Martin, like the neighbouring shopkeepers, is not an expert in human personality and has misinterpreted Steve’s behaviour.
§V. I do not seek to deny Steve’s action. He has always admitted that he tipped a basket of rotten fruit over his friend. But what he does deny is that it was caused either as a consequence of assertiveness classes or confidence-enhancing hormones, being, rather, a consequence of the stress of operating in a difficult business climate. He has offered to pay for the cost of the cleaning of the suit, but Martin has unreasonably rejected it. Because of that, I would ask you, men of Athens, that even if you find in Martin’s favour, he should gain no financial advantage from this suit.
Judgement. In the case of Martin vs. Steve, the jury finds Steve guilty of wanton suit filthying, but only fines him the cost of the cleaning because of the effects of assertiveness classes, hormones and economic stress. Neither the assertiveness teacher nor the manufacturer of Confidunce™ should be subject to any penalties since both operate within and comply with the law and since Steve freely chose to take assertiveness classes and confidence-enhancing hormones. Nonetheless, we still believe that he is, underlyingly, the same person whom Martin originally knew.
Notes
1. I assume that Martin thinks Steve has chosen to be unfriendly as an exercise of free will, but Steve would also have exercised his free will by choosing to take the drugs. It’s hard to see how Martin can then absolve Steve by blaming Steve’s condition on the hormones.
Martin goes back to Steve to try and remonstrate and gets a basket of rotten fruit tipped over him, making a mess of his suit. Steve apologises and says that because of the pressures of business, he just hasn’t been himself. Should Martin forgive him or is this now a matter for the police?
§1. It is not Steve who should be on trial today, men of Athens, but those who were the cause of the change to his personality. Nonetheless, it was Steve who tipped a basket of rotten fruit over me, which resulted in a £25 dry cleaning bill.
§2. Formerly, Steve was noted for the amiability of his personality so that when I found that he was inclined to be rude and aggressive, I wondered whether he was, indeed, the same person whom I had once known. This can be attributed to two causes, as I shall outline in my opening statement.
§3. I asked the other shopkeepers about him, but they all replied that Steve was well-known for being ill-tempered. It was from the florist that I learnt he had taken an assertiveness class. Therefore, I am also indicting the teacher of that class on a charge of personality violation.
§4. It was from the chemist that I then learnt that Steve had been taking hormones to increase his aggressiveness. Now since the chemist merely sells licensed drugs and may not withhold those products from his customers which are freely available, whether he believes them to be detrimental or not, it would be improper of me to indict him. But it is the responsibility of the manufacturers of such drugs to clearly indicate the effects of the drug, which they do not do, as I shall show. Therefore, I am charging them with inadequate labelling of a drug called Confidunce™.
§5. Thus, gentlemen, you can see how it is that Steve, once polite, friendly and mild-mannered, has become rude, unfriendly and aggressive. Because of the damage that he did to my suit and the subsequent cost of having it cleaned, I am asking that he be fined £50, £25 for the cost and £25 as punitive damages; because of the changes to Steve’s personality, I am asking that the teacher of the assertiveness class be sent into exile and be deprived of his citizenship; and finally, I am asking that the company which manufactures Confidunce™ be fined £10,000,000.
§I. Was it those who are alleged to have altered Steve’s personality who should be here on trial today? Perhaps it ought to be, but I am not here to prosecute or defend them, but to defend Steve against the charge against him.
§II. Since we all have free will over ourselves at least and since we change as time passes, Martin was obvio0usly wrong to expect that his friend would necessarily be the same person that he was when the two were acquainted. Moreover, witnesses shall reveal that Martin’s personality has also changed since they first knew each other.
§III. It should be noted that the shopkeepers were stating their opinions about Steve’s personality, but not being experts in the field of personality, their description of his personality may not be strictly accurate because behaviour which might be described by some as rude and aggressive is actually assertive and confident; and I shall call expert witnesses to confirm this.
§IV. On the labelling of Confidunce™, I will not deny that the notice describing the effects of the drug may be small, but it is, in accordance with state-authorised guidelines and fully discloses the effects of the drug. Steve is not aggressive because of the hormones, but rather confident. Martin, like the neighbouring shopkeepers, is not an expert in human personality and has misinterpreted Steve’s behaviour.
§V. I do not seek to deny Steve’s action. He has always admitted that he tipped a basket of rotten fruit over his friend. But what he does deny is that it was caused either as a consequence of assertiveness classes or confidence-enhancing hormones, being, rather, a consequence of the stress of operating in a difficult business climate. He has offered to pay for the cost of the cleaning of the suit, but Martin has unreasonably rejected it. Because of that, I would ask you, men of Athens, that even if you find in Martin’s favour, he should gain no financial advantage from this suit.
Judgement. In the case of Martin vs. Steve, the jury finds Steve guilty of wanton suit filthying, but only fines him the cost of the cleaning because of the effects of assertiveness classes, hormones and economic stress. Neither the assertiveness teacher nor the manufacturer of Confidunce™ should be subject to any penalties since both operate within and comply with the law and since Steve freely chose to take assertiveness classes and confidence-enhancing hormones. Nonetheless, we still believe that he is, underlyingly, the same person whom Martin originally knew.
Notes
1. I assume that Martin thinks Steve has chosen to be unfriendly as an exercise of free will, but Steve would also have exercised his free will by choosing to take the drugs. It’s hard to see how Martin can then absolve Steve by blaming Steve’s condition on the hormones.
Tomorrow, John Locke has a sleeping problem, but his consideration for others causes him to forget a good idea.
Comments