The following exchange is from Dialogue Group 11, Thread 9.

1. Passing judgement
Wed, Dec 23, 1998 - 8:42 AM/EST
stygmata

Over in the thread where abortion was mentioned, one of us thanked another for not 'passing judgement' on the single mothers who had made a particular decision. I want to discuss how we tend to use that phrase in political and moral discussion.

It's taken as almost a given that it is as best impolite and at worse immoral to "judge" another's morals, opinions, or behavior. Individual liberty, the right to pursue one's chosen path, "doing one's own thing," marching to a different drummer, etc. etc. - these are all mentioned in moral conversation as reasons why we should not judge another. And of course, it is a long-standing tenet of the Religions of the Book (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) that ultimate judgement is reserved for God (other religions may also believe this o'course).

So there is a very strong informal social pressure for us to not 'judge' one another or 'impose laws' on another's freedom, or worst of all, make them feel bad about themselves.

However (and this is where my own opinion kicks in), in a democracy/republic, where the general will of the *people* is supposed to be the root from whence law and authority spring, aren't we *required* to use our judgement to evaluate behavior and opinions? How else do we distinguish a bad and dangerous idea that we may vote on from a good and just idea?

Case in point: How do we decide whether a leader or ours may be removed from office without using our judgement and evaluating his behavior, the legitimacy of his rule, his moral authority?

Aristotle once asserted that the good citizen should *also* be the good human, although opinions on the latter vary widely. Aristotle thought, however, that a difference of opinion on what 'the good' for persons is expresses a healthy democracy, where people get up face to face in the agora and actually *debate* moral ideas rather than simply asserting them.

What I would like to propose is that for this discussion to be successful - for it to inject some measure of political legitimacy to our discussons around President Clinton and government - we have to be willing to judge. We have to be willing to offer reasons for our judgement other than blind opinion, personal preference, or our personal benefit. We need to be able to engage in *important* debate, not just debate designed to malign, harass, and obfuscate.

Can we perhaps agree *to* engage in judgment as we expect the Senate to sit in judgement over the President? And can we venture to do so with a civilized respect for other human beings, offering reasoned argumentation and gentle rhetoric?

2. passing judgement
Wed, Dec 23, 1998 - 9:39 AM/EST
niasis

You know, I have always preferred the Socratic method of answering questions with questions... taking a definitive stand has always been difficult because it closes doors particularly on moral issues. That said, you are absolutely correct about needing reason and cogent argumentation in public discourses. I agree that there is need for a majority judgement for a democracy to work and to work effectively there is need for consensus (backed by civil, rational debate). In this thread, may I suggest that we define the *scope* of the debate which tests our ability to arrive at a judgement as a group? I prefer to leave judgements on private choices out of the scope for now (call me chicken). Another thing, while vehement assertion has never won rational arguments, I venture that we are each outcomes of our own personal experiences and, as such, personal preference is integral to our decision-making processes.

4. Passing Judgement
Wed, Dec 23, 1998 - 2:02 PM/EST
Tom B

I believe our society has come to recognize that there is a difference between public and private behavior. The majority can and does dictate public matters such as how we tax ourselves, and how our federal, state and local governments are run. That is the way it should be.

On private matters, though, the majority has no standing whatsoever. The decisions in these areas can only be made by the individual. I think most of us would include in this category such things as what we read, what movies or plays we see, how we worship or don't worship.

The problem comes because of the things we can't agree on as to whether they are public or private. For example, The United Methodist Church, of which I am a member, has recently reaffirmed a ban on ordination of homosexuals. Obviously, a majority of the people attending the General Conference felt that this was a matter that was appropriate for them to rule on.

To me, it seems to be an unwarranted and unjustified invasion of privacy. A clergyman's sexual preferences become relevant only when they diminish his or her ability to function. Surely, some homosexuals who apply for ordination are not suited for the job; but we also have heterosexual clergy whose libido makes them ineffective. Should we therefore refuse to ordain heterosexuals?

6. Passing Judgement
Wed, Dec 23, 1998 - 6:23 PM/EST
Jamest

It seems to me that when the major religions are saying that we are not to judge it has to do with judging another as God might, that is, damnation/salvation. I'm not as familiar with Islam,but certainly the Judeo/Christian teaching is that we are *obligated* to judge. We judge behavior from speeding tickets to murder. If we did not judge there would be no order. Justice protects the innocent and the needy. We must judge.

7. Judge Not, Lest Ye be Judged Yourself
Wed, Dec 23, 1998 - 8:42 PM/EST
MAYORBOB

I guess the terms judgement and judgemental have acquired a pejorative dimension. I am not sure exactly why this is so. Jamest has a good point about the proscription against judging -- the biblical sense is that only God is capable of seeing within the person to determine their thoughts and reasons for what they do. It was left to mankind to judge their actions...and this is not an altogether bad idea.

Think of how much easier it would be to determine if a person's actions were good or bad; legal or illegal; without having to mull over whether they were mistreated as children or have some strange and arcane psychiatric syndrome that only a paid shrink can outline for a jury (for a price). Judge the actions of the person and determine if he or she is guilty, fix the penalty, and offer medical help if they truly are suffering from some malady.

TomB questions whether the Methodist Church has the moral authority to prohibit homosexuals from being ordained...and makes a fine point that there are many heterosexuals that might be found unfit if we knew more about their actions.

Allow me to play Devil's (not Methodist's) advocate for a moment TomB. If I am an elder in the Methodist church, I am interested in bringing mankind to Methodism and ensuring that souls are spared from eternal damnation. Now there are biblical references to those men who lay with men being damned for their sins and their are prohibitions against homosexual acts. It seems eminently reasonable that I, as one who can determine who should be fit to serve as a Methodist minister, take every step to preclude someone who is manifestly damned by God from acting as a minister under the doctrine that the fruit of the poisoned tree is poisoned itself.

I think at this point, I become a Unitarian.

8. Judge not....
Wed, Dec 23, 1998 - 8:45 PM/EST
stygmata

These have all been great responses

Regarding judgement:

It's true, Christianity and Judaism *do* teach that one should not judge as God judges. However, the phrase "Judge not, lest *ye* be judged" to me seems to be relevant here.

The public rises up and becomes indignant at those who proclaim what they see as truth loudly - and feels attacked when their judgement is questioned. This act of public judgement *has* been carried on by Christians, but take note that before executions, it used to be nearly mandatory that the prisoner to be executed had to *confess* their sin before the execution. This confession removes some of the moral burden on the prosecutors and judges, perhaps, becuase the executed person is going ultimately to where God wishes them to go, and presumably if they have confessed in good grace their spirit may ultimately be pardoned.

This long digression was to say that I don't *think* I disagree with you. Christianity states that the ultimate judgment of one's immortal soul is reserved to God, and does exhort Christians to be righteous, which involves judgment. But it also urges Christians to pray in their closets and not on the street and to fear pride and vanity - the Christian is supposed to judge *for* themselves, and to be concerned with the state of their own soul. Thus the concern to get that confession - it also puts the *judge's* soul right with God.



So judgement is, in my view, a bucking of Christian ideals (although Christians and many others do it in practice all the time). Using good judgement for me also involves being able to offer reasons for one's beliefs other than simple tradition or faith, however. I judge that murder is wrong, not becuase I judge as God commands, but because I believe murder is wrong for good reasons which I am prepared to argue to the community.

9. Murder is wrong?
Wed, Dec 23, 1998 - 10:28 PM/EST
Jamest

Stygmata, are you saying if I believe murder is okay in some circumstances ( I kill a rapist because I believe they have little value in society )then that moral decision is as acceptable as your belief that murder is wrong, because I'm "prepared to argue to the community"? Are you saying we can all determine for ourselves what is right and wrong?

14. Reply to Jamest
Thu, Dec 24, 1998 - 7:33 AM/EST
stygmata

No, Jamest - what I'm saying is that moral rules are legitimate or illegitimate becuase they are accepted by a community in a process of dialogue. This is as opposed to mere tradition, aesthetic preference, self-benefit, comfort, laziness, profit, etc. A moral rule should be judged on its own terms.

It is up to contribute to the process through dialogue and discourse, and to help that process by giving good reasons for their ideas.

So in fact I am *not* saying at all that we ourselves 'judge' what is right and wrong in an absolute sense. I am saying that we have to be prepared to offer *reasons* for why what we did should be judged as right or wrong. Is that clearer?