Hiding from Humanity: Disgust, Shame, and the Law by Martha Nussbaum might be a bit too philosophical to appeal to the general reader (including me at times). All the same, it's general thesis is sound and achieved with some interesting discussion along the way. A book of this nature is often good because it provides a broad summary of many concepts that informs much more than its narrow focus suggests. Likewise, there are many interesting sidebars, including John Stuart Mill's emotional crisis.* It also has applications to current events.
Professor Nussbaum argues that shame and disgust are improper influences on criminal law because the emotions are especially arbitrary and likely to harm powerless groups. Disgust arises from a fear of contamination, shame often a result of general fear of basic human weakness. Both might be necessary to some degree, but too often they are used to hide from imperfections that are basic to humanity, and at times not imperfections at all.
For instance, homosexuals are but one group that serves as a sort of scapegoat to protect us from threats to "normal" gender relationships. Relationships that are often more "magical thinking" than true to life (e.g. shame and disgust has promoted stereotypical views on women). The net result is stigma, a major threat to the equal dignity she argues our citizens should each receive. Similar concerns caution us not to even use disgust as a reason to enhance infamous crimes. For instance, it might lead us to assume they are committed by "monsters," when in fact the drives involved are in us all.
Nussbaum does feel that emotion has an important role to play in our public life. For instance, anger is a totally proper emotion (if used with the right amount of perspective) because it suggests there are certain things in life that are very important and should not be deprived wrongly. As she notes:
Disgust, I shall argue, is very different from anger, in that its thought-content is typically unreasonable, embodying magical ideas of contamination, and impossible aspirations to purity, immortality, and nonanimality, that are just not in line with human life as we know it.
And, though shame is usually troubling, guilt is not. Guilt focuses on the wrongful act itself, not on the person, which makes it much less arbitrary.
Prof. Nussbaum ties this altogether to attempt to provide a basic liberal philosophy. She finds Mill useful, but flawed. To my amateur eyes, Nussbaum seems a bit too critical of his overall approach. For instance, as a good liberal, she is loathe to count out hate crime laws. All the same, the troubles of line drawing and the dangers involved in trying just to shut down hate speech suggests this is not the place to attack Mill.
Nussbaum also is wary of his utilitarian approach to individual liberty. First, she feels it is too fact based, and opens up the possibility that the promotion of truth and societal well being can be accomplished by selective harm to certain groups. I'll accept this when I hear an explanation of how this truly can be done. The seriously disabled might be a troubling case, but we often quite underestimate the value of such individuals, and familial ties alone would probably factor in. In general, stigmatized groups such as homosexuals (e.g. Whitman) and the disabled (e.g. FDR) are deprived at our peril.
Second, Nussbaum basically uses a form of the "people should not be a means to an end" argument. My rejoinder is why do we feel a person should have certain basic rights? We do so for a reason: because it has been shown to be the best way to protect the well being of us all. The rights aren't just there for their own sake. And, Mill's philosophy requires giving free reign to self-development, and thus is quite concerned with the individual. Individual liberty promotes societal well being.
Finally, I'd toss in, that just because Mill might have been too closed minded about certain groups (too stridently in her view because society must treat all with respect, especially in disputed areas like religious faith), but I don't think his philosophy mandated him to be. This is not to say John Stuart Mill's philosophy might not be limited in certain ways. All the same, I do find a basic truth to it that influences the way I look at the world.
Anyway, this is but a sidebar of my own. Overall, Nussbaum skillfully puts forth an argument that we are imperfect beings, but does not see this as a bad thing. It is but the true nature of our humanity, one that is only confused when we rely on shame and disgust to guide our law. And, doing so is liable to interfere with the equal dignity and respect that should be the basic foundation of our society. A society of imperfect beings that requires assistance ("primary goods") in various cases to truly pursue happiness.
The ultimate ends are clear, even if there is some debate on how to get there.
---
* A footnote in passing mentioned that a certain appeals decision went the "wrong" way because the deciding vote was confused by mental problems. Assisted by someone who is familiar with the players involved, I learnt that the author is a colleague of the other two judges, one of whom probably informed her of the situation. The judge said to be confused was elderly at the time and his vote did not match his judicial leanings. Interesting trivia, though I think it was a bit improper for her to toss it in.