I’m reading a book by William H. Shaw entitled Contemporary Ethics: Taking Account of Utilitarianism (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 1999). In his chapter on rights, liberty, and punishment, Shaw writes:
Staunch retributivists believe that it is right to punish wrongdoers even if doing so has no positive social benefits whatsoever. (page 179)
This got me to wondering. Has anyone—even Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)—ever been described as a staunch utilitarian? And then it occurred to me that conservatives are often described as staunch. But liberals never are. I’ve heard the expression “staunch conservative” dozens of times, but I don’t recall hearing “staunch liberal.” What’s going on? Is staunchness the sort of thing that can be ascribed only to conservatives and retributivists?
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, 2d ed., “staunch,” when used as an adjective to describe a person, means “Standing firm and true to one’s principles or purpose, not to be turned aside, determined.” But surely there are utilitarians and liberals who stand firm, &c., so why aren’t they described as staunch? The answer, I think, is that “staunch” is pejorative. It connotes stubbornness, intolerance, inflexibility, and a refusal to think. A staunch conservative is someone who can’t or won’t bend, even though circumstances require it. Since utilitarians and liberals pride themselves on their tolerance, flexibility, and open-mindedness, you’re not likely to hear them use the adjective to describe themselves.
What Shaw may not realize is that, by qualifying “retributivists” with the adjective “staunch,” he narrows the class of retributivists. For if there are staunch retributivists, then there must be nonstaunch retributivists. Otherwise, the adjective does no work. And if there are staunch conservatives, there must be nonstaunch conservatives. But this is logic, not psychology. Most people associate staunchness with retributivism when they hear the expression “staunch retributivist.” (Studies show this.) Instead of picking out a subset of retributivists, in other words, “staunch” comes to define retributivism. So perhaps Shaw is trying to get his readers to think that all retributivists, and not just some of them, are staunch.
Look at his sentence again, for it has other manipulative aspects. What’s a “positive social benefit”? Could there be a negative social benefit or a positive social detriment? Why the redundancy, unless Shaw is trying to make retributivists look bad? And what does the word “whatsoever” add? Compare the following:
1. Staunch retributivists believe that it is right to punish wrongdoers even if doing so has no positive social benefits whatsoever.
2. Retributivists believe that it is right to punish wrongdoers even if doing so has no social benefits.
The second says everything the first does, but without the manipulative rhetoric that—forgive me—appears designed to make retributivists look bad. It will not surprise you to learn that Shaw is a utilitarian. As such, he has a vested interest in making retributivism look bad.
Addendum: I just typed “staunch liberal” into Google. It got 15,700 hits. I typed “staunch conservative” into Google. It got 87,500 hits. Q.E.D.
Addendum 2: The word “liberal” got 118,000,000 hits, so it is qualified by “staunch” once every 7,515.9 occurrences. The word “conservative” got 78,300,000 hits, so it is qualified by “staunch” every 894.8 occurrences. Thus, conservatives are 8.4 times more likely than liberals to be described as staunch.