Benjamin Franklin quote

[snopes]

Comment: Did Benjamin Franklin really say, "Justice will not be served
until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are"?

[ganzfeld]

I could find very few references to this quote prior to 2003. After that it seems to have balloned in popularity. I wonder if someone simply made up the quote and added his name to it.

[BrianB]

Originally Posted by ganzfeld

I could find very few references to this quote prior to 2003. After that it seems to have balloned in popularity. I wonder if someone simply made up the quote and added his name to it.

The earliest reference I could find on Usenet was this post on 10 May 1997. I'm also seeing the same recent upswing in people quoting it.
It does appear to be widely believed. I found that it has been used on a memorial to victims of crime in Lubbock, Texas.
Brian

[Cestrian]

What does this quote mean?
It suggests that we must always be outraged about everything for justice to be done.

I am walking down the street, if you are all sufficiently outraged by this, then I am to be punished?

[ganzfeld]

Originally Posted by Cestrian

What does this quote mean?
It suggests that we must always be outraged about everything for justice to be done.

I am walking down the street, if you are all sufficiently outraged by this, then I am to be punished?

It suggests nothing of the kind. You must have made some strange logical leaps to get a positive statement about punishment from a negative statement about justice being served.

[Cestrian]

Originally Posted by ganzfeld

It suggests nothing of the kind. You must have made some strange logical leaps to get a positive statement about punishment from a negative statement about justice being served.

I admit I am being particularly dense but the quote is meaningless without context. I tried to write what it means to me but it dissolves into absurdity. Outrage and justice just don't seem to go together. Add the unaffected bystander and you end up with a system more akin to a police state.

[Griffin2020]

Originally Posted by Cestrian

What does this quote mean?
It suggests that we must always be outraged about everything for justice to be done.

I am walking down the street, if you are all sufficiently outraged by this, then I am to be punished?

That is outrageous, and it gets my dander up!

[Lainie]

Originally Posted by Cestrian

I admit I am being particularly dense but the quote is meaningless without context.

Not to me, and apparently not to Ganzfeld or BrianB.

I tried to write what it means to me but it dissolves into absurdity.

That's because of the odd logical leaps Ganzfeld mentioned.

Since the quote deals with justice, the existence of some sort of wrongdoing is implied. If those not directly affected by wrongdoing or evil acts are not outraged by those acts, they will not care as much whether justice is done to those who committed, and those who are affected by, such acts.

Outrage and justice just don't seem to go together.

Perhaps you're confusing "outrage" with another word. Check out definitiion #3 at Dictionary.com:

a powerful feeling of resentment or anger aroused by something perceived as an injury, insult, or injustice: Outrage seized the entire nation at the news of the attempted assassination.

Add the unaffected bystander and you end up with a system more akin to a police state.

So if I'm outraged by a crime that does not directly affect me -- say, the murder of a person I've never met -- I'm supporting a police state? That is absurd. Again, I think you're confusing "outrage" with some other word.

[chillas]

Originally Posted by Lainie

Not to me, and apparently not to Ganzfeld or BrianB.

Nor I. I'm very unclear where the confusion lies. The quote is rather straightforward, as far as I can see.

[Cestrian]

But justice ought to be dispassionate and based on rational and logical principles. Justice based on anger or resentment is more like mob rule.

[chillas]

Originally Posted by Cestrian

But justice ought to be dispassionate and based on rational and logical principles. Justice based on anger or resentment is more like mob rule.

True, but irrelevant, since the quote doesn't say anything even remotely like that.

[Cestrian]

"Justice will not be served
until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are"

I guess what it means is that those of us who are unaffected (ie not involved in the crime - perpetrator or victim) should carry out the functions of justice [since we outnumber both], otherwise justice would be controlled by the bad guys or the victims neither of which can be trusted (obviously!) with the task.

"outraged" in this context is an archaic (or American) usage.

[Lainie]

Originally Posted by Cestrian

"Justice will not be served
until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are"

I guess what it means is that those of us who are unaffected (ie not involved in the crime - perpetrator or victim) should carry out the functions of justice [since we outnumber both], otherwise justice would be controlled by the bad guys or the victims neither of which can be trusted (obviously!) with the task.

The quote says nothing about who should "carry out the functions of justice." It describes a condition that must exist before justice will be served.

"outraged" in this context is an archaic (or American) usage.

With what usage are you more familiar?

[Cestrian]

Originally Posted by Lainie

The quote says nothing about who should "carry out the functions of justice." It describes a condition that must exist before justice will be served.



With what usage are you more familiar?

My definition of outrage is the same as the one you quoted above: "anger and resentment..." but I contend that justice based on outrage is more likely to result in public lynchings than fair justice.

For example, I don't need to be outraged that someone has been killed to want the perpetrator brought to justice. I would feel sad for the victim and maybe pity for the killer (though that would depend on the circumstances).

I might be outraged at a lack of justice but I don't think the quote has anything to do with that perspective.

The quote sounds like a soundbite - sounds good but means little.

[chillas]

Originally Posted by Cestrian

The quote sounds like a soundbite - sounds good but means little.

Based on responses in this thread, it sounds more like you don't understand the quote.

[Cestrian]

Originally Posted by chillas

Based on responses in this thread, it sounds more like you don't understand the quote.

Well d'uh!
Please see my first post.

If anyone knows what the quote means please feel free to enlighten me.

[Lainie]

Originally Posted by Cestrian

Well d'uh!
Please see my first post.

If anyone knows what the quote means please feel free to enlighten me.

I explained it's meaning to me in my first post in the thread. Here it is again, but at this point, I'm not confident it will help:

Since the quote deals with justice, the existence of some sort of wrongdoing is implied. If those not directly affected by wrongdoing or evil acts are not outraged by those acts, they will not care as much whether justice is done to those who committed, and those who are affected by, such acts.

If you're still stuck on the word "outrage," try substituting "morally offended."

[Plurabelle]

Wow, my initial interpretation of the quote was pretty strange now that I hear everyone else's thoughts (I do only have one cup of coffee under my belt). I first read it to mean that we are vulnerable to an unjust system of laws unless people ensure everyone is treated fairly, rather than only worrying that their own group isn't being discriminated against. For example all people should be "outraged" about a law that unfairly targets pagans since such a law means our system as a whole is unjust, which affects everyone.

I'm not sure why I at first read the quote that way, probably because I tend to associate BF first with his "founding father" role and so take any quote from him in that context to begin with (though I know he did loads of other things as well).

ETA: I do realize it seems not to be a Franklin quote at all, given the evidence provided by others above--the original mentioning of BF did color my interpretation anyway.

Basically you have to act even though you aren't directly involved. It's the same as making a stance on gay marriage even if you aren't affected by the outcome. Otherwise you'll always be a victem because those needed to act will only want to when it is affecting them.


Am I close in the meaning or did I fudge it up?

[Steve Eisenberg]

I'm pretty sure it is a fake quote.

First of all, qoogling the quote, it doesn't come up on non-partisan quotation sites. Mostly it is being used on the net to push a left of center POV, although the earliest reference found (see BrianB's first link above) comes from (looking at other posts by the same person) a Clinton-basher.

I may be wrong, but I don't think people in the 18th century used the word "outraged" as in this quote. Looking in the original Oxford English Dictionary, I see the phrases "o outraged mercy," "which outraged law delights in," and "outraged maiden." The phrase "as outraged as," in the alleged Franklin quote, seems to me rather different from these, and quite 20th century.

In the quote, the word "outraged" is used to describe the emotional state of an individual. But in the 18th century, the word "outraged" just implies that something terrible had been done to a person, or even an abstract entity like the law, without making clear how they felt. Is that by any chance the smoking gun to disprove this?