What We Do Not Understand About Judgement[1]
By: Lauren Shepley
Tags: Kindness, Happiness, Empathy, Acceptance, Self Improvement

In the past, when Western society was still influenced by Christian values, judgement was a very serious thing. It was only reserved for God. And he only did it on Judgement Day — the end of the world — or when you died — either you were going to heaven or hell. Though judgement was an excruciating experience, you only had to endure it once.

However, in modern times we have toppled the Christian faith and now judgement has become a free-for-all sport.

Then, in all our kindness and humility, we remind other people that they ‘should not judge’ or ‘have no right to judge’. So kind of you. In this way, it becomes about ‘should not’ and ‘do not have the right’, which is a very different thing altogether.

We have quite forgotten that ‘we cannot judge’ and ‘only God can’. The word ‘can’ implies ‘ability’ or ‘capacity’ as opposed to ‘should’ or ‘have no right’ which infer a moral obligation not to.

And even with our moral keenness, as much as we should not, we do, and as much as we do not have the right, we consider ourselves so smart, so intellectual that we do indeed have this privilege (De Botton, 08H18).

I am not at all suggesting that when the Christian faith was more ingrained in our societies that no one judged. I am sure judging was just as much a sport as it is now. The difference was that back then we taught that people do not have the ability or capacity to judge. They simply ‘cannot’. Furthermore, believing that we ‘should not judge’ still connotes a sense of moral and intellectual superiority — it is because we are super awesome people that we are refraining for judgement. Nonetheless, our moral capabilities remain intact. This is anything but humbling — and worse it encourages this belief that we are not only superior minded but truly virtuous. It is comparable with winning an award for best jazz musician when all you can play is air guitar.

The Modern Judgement Crisis

We judge all the time.

We confuse our opinions for overarching moral codes for they reflect predominant values, even if what we believe has nothing to do with morality, but just norms.

Before I continue, I want to say that I am not proposing any kind of moral relativism. I think moral relativism is absurd and its pervasiveness in non-violent countries would be less case if the countries had more incidents of violence[2].

However, what we take to be moral codes or principles can more accurately be classified as ethics[3] and norms. It is the predominance of the latter which concerns this paper.

Attitude, culture, and lifestyle habits inform much of our judgement.

A clear example is the very controversial subject of gun control. Many city-slickers have no need for guns. Generally, the police live within a reasonable distance and violence for the most part has been decreasing, so they are generally safe. Guns are an absurd idea in such areas. However, for farmers, game rangers, security guards, cash-in-transit workers and other groups, guns are necessary. For instance, farmers in my country have massive issues with caracals — a lynx-looking wildcat. Though, they are real beauties, caracals are absolutely crazy. In one night, a caracal will kill all the sheep of one farm and only eat just one leg. Ideally, it would be better if we could reason with the wildcat and ask it just to kill the one sheep, but like most of nature, it cannot be reasoned with. While I am unsure where I stand on the topic of farmers shooting caracals to save all the livestock, I know that if the farmers do not, more of the population will go hungry.

This is one example of a heated discussion of contemporary times.

Most people are against guns, but most people are not farmers, and most people do not have to worry about feeding 90% of the population.

The same goes for most debates. You are only acutely aware of your context, and if you listen to others and if they are honest, perhaps you could become slightly informed about another’s situation.

Like with the above context, norms dictate opinions which are disguised as morals. When someone suggests different, they become immoral as opposed to contrary.

Who Can Say ‘Deserve’?

In response to a question on equal pay, the Nobel-prize winning economist Milton Friedman said, “Deserve is an impossible thing to decide. Who deserves what? Nobody deserves anything. Thank God, we don’t get what we deserve.”

When we conceive of ‘who deserves what’, we try to measure what we think we should get based on who we think we are and how we act in a comparison to everyone else. It is a very advanced form of judgement, but one that is impossible as it involves judging oneself and others.

Below are some contentious questions aiming to show how difficult it is to arrive at a conclusion on the nature of deserving. Some may say ‘yes’, and some ‘no’. There are equally strong arguments on both sides.

> Do people who burn down schools deserve to be educated?

> Do individuals who burn down hospital deserve healthcare?

> Do individuals who severely neglect their own health deserve free and good quality healthcare?

Furthermore, we can never know the full extent of someone’s behaviour or circumstances so arriving at a conclusion of what they deserve is impossible. We do no know what they have being saying to themselves for most of their lives. Not that people should be judged by their thoughts. Yet, thoughts do have a certain impact. We do not know how much time another person has spent pursuing their goals and how much time they have spent neglecting to pursue them. We simply do not know, but often I have heard people making overarching statements about who deserves what: a promotion, to be rich, to be poor and to have a nice car.

While Friedman believes that deserve is an impossible thing, I do feel we can estimate what we deserve for ourselves — but only for ourselves.

We know how we spend almost every minute and we know the full extent of our past actions. At the same time, we have to be fair and honest to ourselves and that is not easy feat. Nevertheless, when it comes to others, we cannot judge.

Positive Judgement

There are two dimensions of judgement we tend to overlook. The first is good judgement. Good judgement is good. We enjoy it very much and we endorse it fully. When someone compliments us, agrees with us, or simply gives us attention, we encourage it. However, good judgement remains judgement. Like its negative counterpart, the people who flatter us and give us positive remarks too lack proper capacity to make an informed comment. In such contexts, not only do we welcome the opinions and comments of others, but now suddenly they acquire ‘the right’ to them.

Is it simply because their comments are positive or complimentary that now someone has attained the moral authority to judge?

This seems to be the case in the contemporary world. Mantras such as ‘if you do not have anything nice to say, you should not say it’ seem to suggest that only good judgement is acceptable. However, good judgement remains judgement — and it could be more nefarious than its honest relative, Judgement. For example, if you get into the habit of spending more money than you earn, you can have friends or acquaintances who support this excessive behaviour. These people may only express positive remarks on your spending habits, but it is in no way helpful. There may not be any insidious reasons for their encouragement. They may be higher earners or have fewer financial responsibilities and are hardly in the position to be vigilant over their finances.

The problem is that positive commentary is almost the only kind of judgement encouraged in modern society.

In such instances, you gain “the right to judge”. Even if it is completely inaccurate and destructive, as long as it sounds nice and pleasant you have the moral authority to do so.

Self Judgement

Photo by Maximiliano Estevez on Pixabay

The second dimension of judgement we forget about is self-judgement.

Every now and then, I peek at the pages of my past and immediately shut the book. Self-judgement is not easy. We are probably our harshest critics.

When we state those defensive mantras such as ‘you have no right to judge’ or ‘you should not judge’, we have this naïve belief that judgement will end.

The problem is you will always be judging yourself. This process of self-improvement is hard-wired into us.

What do you think evolution is? Everything in nature is in a continuous state of becoming more resilient, adaptive, and more streamlined.

You may think just shut off your critical voice as if you were an engine or machine, but engines and machinery are pretty comfortable rusting away. Humans are not as fond of rust and also have no switch[4].

Though we are calling for judgement from others to end, judgement by no means will. Even if people keep their harsher opinions to themselves, individuals will search every gesture, every word, and every instance of eye contact or rather absence of eye contact for an indication of judgement — positive or negative — from others. In fact, if others stopped sharing their nastier comments, we would probably investigate their behaviour more closely, and as a result, we will probably grow more paranoid and intensify self judgement.

Conclusion

Judging someone else and trying to help them fix them problems is comparable to me giving Alex Honnold advice on rockclimbing. It is at best nonsensical. Honnold lives rock climbing.

Other people live their lives. I do not. I do not have the faintest idea about their lives.

In the contemporary world, we have no idea about anyone else.

Yet, when we say that others should not judge or have no right, we make them believe that they can judge but have an obligation not to.

If they believe themselves particularly intellectual, perhaps they then convince themselves that it is in their best interest to judge.

Saying people ‘should not judge’ is like feeding peanuts to a lion. We can preach soft skills and empathy all we want, but like the lion’s indifference to the peanuts, we are hardly conscious of the realities of other people.

An alternative to such idealistic beliefs of eradicating negative judgement is rather to simply acknowledge that no one ‘can’ judge. This is reserved for God — whatever that may mean to atheists.

And though judgement will prevail in our societies, perhaps, we can take what others think with a pinch of salt knowing fully well that they know nothing about our worlds (our issues, our thoughts, and our relationships) and knowing fully well that we know nothing about theirs.

In this way, we are not weakened by a careless comment or an unkind remark, but rather comforted by its sheer ignorance. I would like to close the with the following quote from Epictetus.

“If you hear that someone is speaking ill of you, instead of trying to defend yourself you should say: ‘He obviously does not know me very well, since there are so many other faults he could have mentioned.” (Enchiridion)

References

Alain de Botton. A kinder, gentler philosophy of success. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtSE4rglxbY

Milton Friedman, Case Against Equal Pay for Equal Work. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsIpQ7YguGE

Notes

[1] Naturally, judges and lawyers are in the business of judgements, a court procession has to convene to form a judgement on the action of an individual. This is an arduous and in-depth process requiring much investigation and discussion. It is simply trying to make a decision and judgement on one event or action and not nature of your character. That is why if you are charged with two crimes, you are tried on two separate charges. This article is more devoted to reaching a conclusion about your character and circumstances.

[2] This is one main factor of morally relativist countries. It is not limited to violence, but the simple belief in moral relativism in countries with decreasing violence allows people more room to adhere to absurd claims of moral relativism.

[3] The discussion of the divergence of ethics from morals is a complex subject and not urgently relevant to this paper. However, it should be mentioned that ethics generally derive from a moral basis but tend to lack the controversial nature of morality. For instance, most people agree with the idea that judges should be partial when overseeing cases. We do not consider a moral obligation for judges but rather a professional necessity, and thus an ethical one.

[4] Brick Pollitt of Cat on a Hot Tin Roof yearns for a mechanical click — which can be likened to the ability of pulling the switch down and entering a state in which engines and mechanical items can rust. If you do not switch your smartphone, television, or computer on, they will cease to operate. Unfortunately, while humans remain animals this switching the judgement process off will never occur. Perhaps, when we integrate with Biotechnology this will be possible. Perhaps, we might have to enter a state of harsh critical judgement, but one where we update ourselves with specific software and we will have reached self-improvement.