A Challenge: Provide a Rational Basis For Judging Others

At the root of my belief system is the acceptance that every attribute, virtue and vice alike, is the product of experience. Whether they are limited to my current existence or the result of many reincarnations makes little difference. All we know is nature and nurture and as far as we can tell we chose neither the body we occupy nor the circumstances in which we were raised. To state that we have chosen either only pushes the problem back a step.

The result of this belief is the complete destruction of my ability to judge others as either inferior or superior to myself. In a system where time and circumstance are the only factors in determining my character, the only rational judgement I can allow is that I have had more or less experience than another. Moral superiority to the worst criminals is only the product of our differing experiences.

I should also say that I have no desire to acquire a philosophy that allows for judgement, but I'm always open to new ideas and I do think it could make for an interesting discussion.

What if someone comes to kill you to take possession of your things?
Will you not judge that to be against your will and proceed accordingly?

reply to post by hezro


I don't believe I should be judging others. I don't believe anyone is superior or inferior.
However, I do believe I have the right to use judgement in assessing other peoples behavior. If I see somone exhibiting destructive behavior, destructive to themselves or others, I have the right to avoid that person. If that is being judgemental, so be it. But I don't believe it is. My faith asks that I avoid them but also to pray for them.

I would like to know why people equate judgement with one being superior and one being inferior. If I see someone being stupid (yes that is a judgemental term) do I encourage their behavior or do I ignore their behavior or do I tell them they are being stupid? I just do not believe that telling someone what they are doing is wrong, offensive or just plain dumb is diminshing that person. It just might be the very thing that turns the person around and saves his/her life.

reply to post by hezro

I'm confused, but then again I always am. May I ask some questions so that I understand this better?

In a system where time and circumstance are the only factors in determining my character,

I don't know what system that might be. I've always thought that the choices we make are both an indication and the root of our character. Take two tired men, one keeps going, the other chooses to go home. Doen't that affect character?

At the root of my belief system is the acceptance that every attribute, virtue and vice alike, is the product of experience.

Are we able to choose our experiences? For better or worse, I've never tried drugs. Is that a choice? I would argue yes. But if you argue that we are only what happens to us, and a lot of that is random chance, then we are machines, good and bad are meaningless.

But that means your OP is meaningless. It may be good or bad, true or false. We can never judge it, because our judging isbased on only random experiences. See why I'm confused?

That's just the start of my confusion, but if you could set me straight on those points I'd be grateful.

Down implies Up. Left implies Right. Maybe it's true you shouldn't get down on what you're not up on.

Ever notice the dualism between that we call reality and that we call the mind? In one it is rigorously maintained and none shall break the rules (Real rules that is not man-made baloney) and yet in the mind one is free to do as they please. Or maybe that is as it seems.

Is it possible that fastidiousness of mind implies a less rigorously maintained reality?

If one can only locate things based upon its relative nature to another thing are we all in touch with the head honcho?

What if by maintaining such a rigorous adherence only to the positive the negative must match it in the echo of your mind?

What if I stopped asking what ifs and just did. Maybe it is not about choosing a side but rather seeing the value of each or perhaps the lack of value of each. Flip a coin eat some toast it'll all be right tomorrow.

reply to post by charles1952

But if you argue that we are only what happens to us, and a lot of that is random chance, then we are machines, good and bad are meaningless.

What I would say about good and bad being meaningless, is that while they may not have intrinsic morality, they do in fact bring pain or happiness. The pain and happiness they bring may create the morality around them. In this case happiness is the supreme morality.

But that means your OP is meaningless. It may be good or bad, true or false. We can never judge it, because our judging isbased on only random experiences. See why I'm confused?

Indeed, but I do not mean to imply that our experiences are random or that judgement/morality is meaningless. Judgement may be both irrational and extremely useful. I do not equate rationality with usefulness.

reply to post by 1PLA1

I would like to know why people equate judgement with one being superior and one being inferior.

This is an extremely good point and perhaps in assuming the connection I have shown my Christian upbringing.

I just do not believe that telling someone what they are doing is wrong, offensive or just plain dumb is diminshing that person. It just might be the very thing that turns the person around and saves his/her life.

No argument here. While I do not believe in the rationality of superiority and inferiority (previously termed judgement) I certainly believe in the value of correction.

reply to post by hezro


Because it matters to the people around me how I carry myself as an individual, I am self-critical first (like everyone else). I can't even not judge myself! Good thing I got the immunity card on my person! J/K

If I come wielding an expression on my face, I might be being self-critical for instance inwardly, but outwardly-maybe someone thinks I got a beef with them and I wind-up waiting for someone to grab me from the tracks, where I may have initially, melanchologically been considering...hypothetically with a twist of irony; RIP Ki.

Who doesn't have their own immunity card?

...because it is in our nature.

you ask for a rational basis? judgement is the basis of rationality itself. this or that. choose.

I have found that it is best to neither deny nor apologize for whatever my natural response might be. recognize it for what it is, and then acknowledge that others are not subject to my perspective.


"non-judgemental" is a facade. you are simply impeding your natural flow.

to me, being judgemental is the same as simply making choices

You need to exercise your judgement when making decisions based upon suitability. I may not always be right, but I think the intelligent decision making process is part of what makes us human.

Like PP said before, just because I judge someone/something as not being the right choice for me, it doesn't mean that I am superior - it's just not right for me.

I'm all sorts of judgey.

reply to post by hezro


Good question.

A rational basis for judging others? Self-preservation. Protection. To know that knife won't come to throat. Judgement must be taken before comfort.

Rationalization is the epitome of subjectivity!

Here, try this on for size... just one example.

The following is from a thread I created titled - "Psychology and Basis Behind (NWO?) PART 1"
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Being in the focus, under the role of leadership, they will project what the world wants.
-Through experience of business, monetary, and many other contributing factors. They are able to realize that these desires(what the world wants), do not bring true happiness.
--They are the epitomy of the adage "To whom, much is given, so much is required."
---they now have power, strong influence, and now the awareness of what does and doesn't bring true happiness.

What is 'required'(in their perspective) by these individuals in order to experience and maintain happiness or a sense of fulfillment...

-To use discrimination, by means of weighing, testing, balancing and discarding.
-To use silence and imagination to gain wisdom and inspiration to guide their lives.
-To continue success in handling money well. To be good at banking and accounting.
-To grasp new ideas quickly, and work at a fast pace.
-To develope increased ability to identify the unbalance, and opposition through discrimination.
--To test the strength of said opposition; Those that either don't share similar or the same initiatives. As well as those that interfere with their desired plan.
--Learning through experience and the recognition of history, they believe they can effectively be able to eliminate and discard these people and/or beliefs.

Judging is effectively "rationalizing" ones ability to compartmentalize, which is to the best of my knowledge just a means of self-defense, that aims to avoid mental discomforts/emotions/state of mind(cognitive dissonance). Which when brought into terms of addressing conflicting social identities, many individual's us compartmentalization to cognitively approach them so they may be 'processed' in a context-based fashion.

Then... to apply the notion that many individuals are seeking 'positive distinctiveness' manifests actively making a conscious effort to use others 'social identity' as a frame of reference against yourself. The result is a choice of behaviors that is heavily dependent by an individuals perceived relationship with other social identities. With this being said, another bi-product of these means then creates a perceived "status hierarchy".

If one were to fall under the notion that self-esteem may be regarded as an anxiety buffer, the subconscious tendency to suppress feelings of anxiety further promotes rationalizations of increased levels of elevated self-esteem. 'Primal Repression' now manifests as a means of ensuring that what is unacceptable to the conscious mind, and would if recalled arouse anxiety, is prevented from entering into it. This, from my understanding... is effectively a precursor to the 'ego'.

"Nathaniel Branden in 1969 defined self-esteem as "...the experience of being competent to cope with the basic challenges of life and being worthy of happiness"

Which then brings my rant to 'Ego'

Ego - id, from Sigmund Freud's structural model
en.wikipedia.org...

"Thus the ego, driven by the id, confined by the super-ego, repulsed by reality, struggles ... [in] bringing about harmony among the forces and influences working in and upon it," and readily "breaks out in anxiety — realistic anxiety regarding the external world, moral anxiety regarding the super-ego, and neurotic anxiety regarding the strength of the passions in the id."[17] It has to do its best to suit all three, thus is constantly feeling hemmed by the danger of causing discontent on two other sides. It is said, however, that the ego seems to be more loyal to the id, preferring to gloss over the finer details of reality to minimize conflicts while pretending to have a regard for reality. But the super-ego is constantly watching every one of the ego's moves and punishes it with feelings of guilt, anxiety, and inferiority.
To overcome this the ego employs defense mechanisms. The defense mechanisms are not done so directly or consciously. They lessen the tension by covering up our impulses that are threatening. Ego defense mechanisms are often used by the ego when id behavior conflicts with reality and either society's morals, norms, and taboos or the individual's expectations as a result of the internalization of these morals, norms, and their taboos.

So... after all that...

We're left with psychological defense mechanisms and buffers that we use in order to avoid cognitive dissonance. While all in the pursuit of happiness... darn you Serotonin and biochemistry!

There's a chance that I may have used certain terminology and concepts out of context. If you are aware of any of these mistakes, please point them out, Deny my ignorance

to be continued.... (links)

Now that the rant is over... time for some references from which much of this is derived. I suggest checking them all out, giving a quick read... and hopefully what I'm trying to communicate is easier to comprehend.


Compartmentalization (psychology)
en.wikipedia.org...(psychology)

Self-esteem
en.wikipedia.org...

Psychological repression
en.wikipedia.org...

Cognitive dissonance
en.wikipedia.org...

Serotonin
en.wikipedia.org...

Id, ego and super-ego
en.wikipedia.org...

Social identity theory
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by hezro


You are right, no one chooses where they are born and to whom. No one choose what they will see as they grow.
I once read that compassion is to allow others to evolve at their own pace. Enjoy watching and let it be.

reply to post by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS


Read your quote on Freud and will certainly review the links as time permits. I've always been more of a Jung man myself, but I hope I can still recognize genius even when I disagree with the conclusion. Wonderful contribution, thank you.

I always need a little help in distinguishing what one means by "judgement".

I think what you mean is "moral judgement"? Not judgement on "what is" (like judging "this is a dog, this a cat...)?
If so I also do not see any universal or static good/evil standard existing......though I do find that we have reason for using our own- because in doing such judgement upon what we observe, we discern what we desire to experience and what we do not. Others around us being like examples of possible acts or behaviors we could choose from and our good/bad judgements assert "what I choose" and "what I do not".
(of course this backfires when people get too caught up in focusing on and fighting the "what I do not choose", which ends up having the opposite effect- making you become the same, doing the same.....)

The judgement of inferiority superiority has use too, in very specific areas of knowledge or skill. There is no doubt in my mind that some people are superior or inferior to me in certain disciplines and schools of thought. That is a fact.
At work I can be a superior or be an inferior in relation to another.
But I do not think that in any deeper, spiritual, essential way we are inferior or superior.
But that is sort of irrelevant on this material plane.... I know we are all equal in value ultimately, I know there is no good and evil... and yet once you get to that point- then what do you do?
Get back to the game of living in which these are part of the game board! (they just become more about fun than seriousness).