Judgment
(I tend to prefer to spell the word as “judgement”.)
Judgments are decisions about the value of something. Every judgment is a decision, but not all decisions are judgments, for some decisions can be made without assessing the value of the something being decided (for example - deciding what to do based on flipping a coin).
Judging actions is natural - the field of “ethics” appears to have concerned itself with how to judge actions. Judging people is a different matter - while it might seem logical to judge people based on their actions, there exists a long tradition indicating that this should not be done. This long tradition clearly dates back to the teachings of Christ, if not further.
People tend not to like to feel judged. Unfortunately, there are circumstances whereby an expression of one’s judgement of the action is construed by the actor (the one who engaged in the action) as a judgement of the actor. This can be due to the way the judgment was expressed, or it can be due to the way the actor chooses to interpret things.
There are, however, pragmatic concerns regarding when people should be judged - for example, those that are a threat/menace to society, etc….
There is also the issue of how to judge thoughts. Should thoughts be judged at all? If thoughts are negatively judged, should they be censored? If enough individuals choose to negatively judge a particular thought or set of thoughts, is this de facto censorship?
I think our issues with censorship and free speech are related to our feelings about judgement. Ultimately we feel like we must be the final judge over what thoughts are good or bad for us, and so we want to be the only one to censor or not censor what thoughts we receive. Unfortunately, in the process of determining whether or not we want to censor the thought, we get exposed to it - so we have no way of censoring out the thoughts that we wish we never had.
Sam provided an interesting comment regarding the importance of people not judging other people. But behind it is something I find disturbing: the tendency to imagine that just because we’re not supposed to judge and that God will eventually, that we should just let “sins” (possibly systemic) continue. When I phrase it like that, I probably get all sorts of gasps from the readership about “he’s getting on soap-box and is engaging in holier-than-thou talk”. However, if instead I had used the word “injustices” instead of “sins”, I don’t think I’d have gotten a second glance from anyone. The fact is that there are some things which we, as a society, have decided it is ok to judge as bad: injustice, economic disparity, disrespectful attitudes to life, etc….
When I substitute “sins” in there, what I mean is to say that God’s judgment about what is “bad” is a greater priority than society’s judgment about what is “bad”.
Certainly, for our own individual sins, this isn’t an issue - we judge them, we correct them. For other people’s private sins, they’re private, so we can’t know them and therefore can’t judge them, and so this also isn’t an issue. For other people’s public sins, society usually does the right thing, with the current set of “controversial” topics being those issues on which society is trying to decide what, if anything, is the right thing.
The tricky issues are with systemic sins, societal thought sins, and with someone else’s interpersonal sin. What do I mean by “societal thought sins”? I mean those mottos and such that have become the basis for society’s understanding of itself. Nike’s “Just Do It” is one classic example that has negative consequences in terms of lack of forethought, etc…. I see societal thought sins as the precursor to systemic sins - most people would not refer to them as systemic sins, but instead to things such as inequities fostered and sanctioned by the system. The point is, they are wrongs, and the system reinforces them. Many people may see segregation as a great example of this.
In the case of societal thought sins, we may fail to even realize the potential negative consequences of listening to that latest advertiser’s sound-bite about some product or that latest Top 40 song, but the long term effects of this becomes the formation of systemic sins. In both cases, a focus on just refraining from commiting individual sins does not help at all.
Now, there’s a gap between individual sins and systemic thought sins, and that gap is the area where one person’s sinful thought becomes the thought of an entire group of people. This happens in communication. So, what should you do when you next see/hear someone express a thought that you believe could lead to systemic thought sins and ultimately to a systemic sin (such as a systemic injustice or a dysfunctional behavior of endemic proportions)?
If I knew the answer to that for sure, I probably would have lived these past few years a little differently.
You’ve got three choices:
1) let them express their thought and do nothing out of the ordinary
2) let them express their thought, and then explain why thinking about something else might be better
3) try to discourage them from expressing the thought (at least once you know what it is), probably by changing the subject or something
None of these are guarranteed to work, and some people may grow a little miffed if you do anything other than (1). If you do (2) often enough, people may start having a negative view of you. (3) also has problems in that they wind up not learning why you’re changing the subject or whatnot and they may just express it at another time when you’re not around. Yet, if you believe as I do, that it is these little thoughts which eventually grow into these systemic injustices/sins, then (1) is not an option if you are a person of conviction.
Of course, part of what this involves is needing to know how God judges things for purposes of choosing whether or not you’re in that kind of situation where you believe someone is about to voice a thought that could lead to a systemic wrong eventually. How to know that? Maybe we’ll touch upon that in another post.
oo.. Morals.. Judgement.. What is right?
Well, I don’t have quite as much to say about this, but I’ll echo your concern for a situation where cheek-turning goes so far that no current pragmatic concerns are addressed.
I understand your idea of a thought sin. I probably wouldn’t use those words, partially because the term sin leaves a bad taste in my existentialist mouth. However, one can easily trace how a thought/idea/meme begins quite innocently, but grows, eventually stimulating negative behavior, such as greed or violence.
What do do about these thoughts? What to do about these conceptual virii that eke out a living in an impressionable society?
I’d like to add a fourth option to your list of what to do when someone expresses what you feel to be a manifestation of a thought “sin”.
4) Make note of the issue, and make a concious effort to express a contradictory and potentially curative thought in your life, not necessarily directly aimed at that person, but aimed at society in general.
The response is based on Ghandi’s idea summed up in the quote, “Be the change you want to see in the world.”
Like any virus, a thought like a “just do it” campaign can only survive in an enviroment that is friendly to it. We are impressionable and eager, and hence fall prey. If people as individuals possessed deep seated ideas about how a moral life should be lived, then they would be more resistant to these thought virii.
When I see people behaving greedily, even subtly, I make note of it, and try to make an active effort to be generous. People resonate each other’s behavior. Your generosity convinces others to do the same, and as they find satisfaction in it, they become resistant to greedy impulses, and the ’systemic sin’ that is associated with that.
Sometimes it is appropriate to mention to someone why you think their idea is flawed, IE, choose option 2, but not always. If people feel ‘accused’ they will retreat. The harder you push, the harder they will push back, eventually giving up and retreating from you, which serves no good purpose.
To judge an action and an actor seperately is very difficult, especially when faced with the need to confront the person about it. However, disconnect the activity from the actor, and trace it to its conceptual origins, and you have a more pure thing to combat.
People are all basically good. Compassion is our deepest and most base instinct and emotion. People who don’t express compassion are doing so because they are confused, because we live in a bewildering world. There is always a reason that they have strayed from the heart, and in most cases, you can feel their reason inside your own heart, because you’ve felt the same way during the course of your life.
Anyway, I suppose I did have a lot to say about the issue. You sure make provocative posts, Andrew. :)