"If he who employs coercion against me could mould me to his purposes by argument, no doubt he would. He pretends to punish me because his argument is strong; but he really punishes me because his argument is weak"
About this Quote
Godwin turns a common political boast on its head: those who claim superior reason yet reach first for punishment reveal not strength but failure. If persuasion were truly available, he argues, any rational actor would choose it, because persuasion respects the other person as a reasoning agent and secures more durable agreement. Coercion is costly, brittle, and morally corrosive. The resort to force is therefore an admission that the case cannot stand on its own; punishment masks insecurity by declaring victory where argument has not succeeded.
The line emerges from Godwins Enlightenment faith that moral and political life should be governed by reasoned debate rather than authority. In An Enquiry Concerning Political Justice (1793), he indicts institutions of punishment for substituting obedience for understanding. People improve not through fear but through the exercise of private judgment. To punish someone for dissenting suggests that the true aim is conformity, not truth. The pretense that coercion flows from a strong argument is a rhetorical cover for an inability or unwillingness to convince.
The claim also cuts deeper than a critique of prisons or tyrants. It challenges everyday authority: the parent who shouts instead of explaining, the manager who threatens instead of justifying, the majority that silences a minority rather than engaging its reasons. Wherever force appears in place of dialogue, Godwin sees a confession that the arguments cannot command assent on their merits.
Critics might reply that some people are not persuadable, or that emergencies require coercion. Godwin allows restraint to prevent immediate harm, but he rejects punishment as a means of moral education. Even when force is necessary to avert danger, it does not validate a doctrine or resolve a dispute.
The aspiration is radical and humane: build social life around reasons that can be shared, revised, and accepted without fear. Where argument genuinely convinces, punishment is unnecessary. Where punishment rules, argument has already failed.
The line emerges from Godwins Enlightenment faith that moral and political life should be governed by reasoned debate rather than authority. In An Enquiry Concerning Political Justice (1793), he indicts institutions of punishment for substituting obedience for understanding. People improve not through fear but through the exercise of private judgment. To punish someone for dissenting suggests that the true aim is conformity, not truth. The pretense that coercion flows from a strong argument is a rhetorical cover for an inability or unwillingness to convince.
The claim also cuts deeper than a critique of prisons or tyrants. It challenges everyday authority: the parent who shouts instead of explaining, the manager who threatens instead of justifying, the majority that silences a minority rather than engaging its reasons. Wherever force appears in place of dialogue, Godwin sees a confession that the arguments cannot command assent on their merits.
Critics might reply that some people are not persuadable, or that emergencies require coercion. Godwin allows restraint to prevent immediate harm, but he rejects punishment as a means of moral education. Even when force is necessary to avert danger, it does not validate a doctrine or resolve a dispute.
The aspiration is radical and humane: build social life around reasons that can be shared, revised, and accepted without fear. Where argument genuinely convinces, punishment is unnecessary. Where punishment rules, argument has already failed.
Quote Details
| Topic | Reason & Logic |
|---|
More Quotes by William
Add to List
