Johnny Sack, fat jokes, and the wrong reasons problem
Asking for a price to insult your wife smacks of the wrong reasons problem
Please like, share, comment, and subscribe. It helps grow the newsletter and podcast without a financial contribution on your part. Anything is very much appreciated. And thank you, as always, for reading and listening.
In season 4 of The Sopranos, one of the main characters—a piece of work named Ralph Cifaretto, who beat his pregnant girlfriend to death for an insult—decided it was a good idea to make a fat joke about the (very overweight) wife of the underboss of a major New York mob. A bad idea. What was the joke?
Bobby 'Bacala' Baccalieri: I'll tell ya what a gold mine is - those Harry Potter books. That's cause it gives the other kids, the 98-pound weaklings, some hope.
Ralph Cifaretto: Oh. Speaking of 98 pounds, I hear Ginny Sack's gettin' a 95-pound mole taken off her ass.
[all laugh]
Tony Soprano: Hey! Some guy's wife! Come on! (Season 4, Episode 2 ‘No Show’).
The implication being that Ginny is so fat that she could have such a large mole removed—something that must be later explained in a sit-down between the New York family and the Soprano crew. Although Johnny — the underboss in question and Ginny’s husband — isn’t there, he hears about the joke through the grapevine, and is understandably outraged. He and his wife are depicted as very close in the show—one of the better mob marriages on the show.
As a result of hearing about the joke, Johnny demands a sit-down with the Soprano crew. At the meeting, Johnny’s boss, Carmine Lupertazzi, suggests that Ralph pay a large fine as a sanction for his cruel and off-color joke. Outraged at the suggestion, Johnny explodes into a fit of rage. Here’s the exchange,
Johnny Sack: [referring to Ralph and his joke he made about his wife Ginny] He said "she was having a ninety-pound mole removed from her ass"
Johnny Sack: [after Carmine doesn't respond and looks confused] The implication was that her ass is so big, she could have a mole that size removed from it
Carmine Lupertazzi: [before shaking his head] It's an off-colored remark: it was highly inappropriate, if you want, I'll demand that his "taxed", but "clip" him?
Johnny Sack: Is it all just about the money?
Carmine Lupertazzi: I'll "crack" him good, I'll ask for two hundred grand
Johnny Sack: [raises his voice] Two hundred grand for insulting my wife? What's next? He gets to fuck her for a million?
Carmine Lupertazzi: [confused] He wants to fuck her?
Johnny Sack: I'm making a point here, I'm talking about my wife's honor here: my honor
Carmine Lupertazzi: We depend on this guy: there's millions of dollars at stake, we can't afford it
Johnny Sack: A room full of guys making fun of my wife and you're not gonna let me deal with this?
Carmine Lupertazzi: Not that way, my answer's gotta be no
Johnny Sack: I want a sit-down then, with Ralph, this fucking thief, and get this Fernandez Paving bullshit dealt with
The especially interesting part of the exchange is Johnny Sack’s reaction to sanctioning Ralph. The outrage at the suggestion that one could simply pay their way out of insulting someone, thereby making everything alright, is interesting given his line of work, colleagues, and general station in life. We are, after all, talking about people who make their living shaking people down for protection money, loan sharking, and many other morally horrible and nefarious things. What is wrong with paying your way out of insulting the wife of the underboss? After all, fines are a common form of punishment both inside the mob and society at large. So what is the big deal?
One possible explanation is what philosophers call the wrong reason problem. This is where our reasons for action appear inappropriate. As moral philosopher, Nathaniel Sharadin, explains,
The fact that someone is generous is a reason to admire them. The fact that someone will pay you to admire them is also a reason to admire them. But there is a difference in kind between these two reasons: the former seems to be the ‘right’ kind of reason to admire, whereas the latter seems to be the ‘wrong’ kind of reason to admire. The Wrong Kind of Reasons Problem is the problem of explaining the difference between the ‘right’ and the ‘wrong’ kind of reasons wherever it appears.
Imagine a different example: on your deathbed, you discover that your wife only married you and stuck by you for the money. As it happens, you have an uncle—one you didn’t know about—who left a bunch of money to your wife, but only so long as she remains married to you. Likely, you would find this insulting and jarring, to say the least—I know I would. This is because her apparent loyalty isn’t based on the right kind of reasons—among other problems—but rather the wrong kind of reasons. Staying married to someone merely for the money is the wrong reason to remain married (even if people are sometimes forced to stay married for difficult financial reasons).
Perhaps the wrong reason problem (unwittingly) enraged Johnny Sack: getting money to get over an insult to one’s beloved wife is the wrong reason to get over it. The intuition is that perhaps by accepting money for making an insulting wife, Johnny would be accepting money and getting over the insult for the wrong reasons. Crass reasons. Reasons that do not reflect the indignity of the situation. Perhaps that is why, in this case, a sincere apology would have been better.
What do you think? Is that Johnny Sack’s problem (in this case)?
I think in the Johnny-Ralphie case (I just watched it recently), it had something to do with the mismatch in currencies being exchanged. Johnny was in the position of trading a share of his honor and authority, which are vital and difficult to reacquire, for cash. It made him look like money was all you needed to make him look like a fool, even if you were subordinate to him.
Maybe this is just a different framing of the wrong reasons problem but it feels like a significant distinction.
I’d never heard of the wrong reasons problem before your post. There’s some really interesting implications there.
The illustration of paying someone to admire you is confusing to me. You can certainly pay someone to act like they admire you, but paying them will not actually make them admire you. Is this the point to the wrong reasons idea, or is it that even if the money did make them admire you there would be something off about it? Is it about the phoniness of the admiration, or about the source of the admiration?