Dennis Prager argues against this silly notion that “we should not judge” by pointing out that if we cannot make judgments, then not only are we prohibited from declaring certain people to be evil/immoral, we are also prohibited from declaring certain people to be good. Both require that we judge the merits of a person. People often miss this because they think of “judgment” only in terms of bad.
Furthermore, it would be meaningless to say someone is good unless they are being compared against someone else we have judged not good. In other words, you can’t say someone is good unless you can say someone is bad.
Thinking to Believe 
December 21, 2006 at 8:31 am
Jason, I don’t really have a problem with the premise that saying that someone is good is also a judgment. I question the statement in the second paragraph, though – “it would be meaningless to say someone is good unless they are being compared against someone else that we have judged not good.” Is this really the case? And doesn’t this feed the idea of a relativistic model of determining good vs. bad?
I think that determining that someone is good begins with a baseline of ideals and if someone follows the ideals (or goes even further toward those ideals) then they are good; if they don’t follow the ideals, then they are not good. This is somewhat abstract, so let me give an example that will hopefully explain. Think of the baseline of ideals as the bar on a high jump. Those that jump over the bar without knocking it over are good, those that don’t are not. Just because everyone jumps over the bar does not mean that we don’t know what a person is. The baseline provides the guidance needed to determine what is good or bad. We don’t need people to miss the bar to tell us that they are bad. We already know what had been determined to be bad, we are just pointing it out when we see it.
What people are really saying when they don’t want you to judge someone is that we have no right to “set” the bar as high as we have. I think if we don’t start with the baseline and compare to the baseline, then we are doing nothing more that create a relativistic model of good and bad. When judgments are made based on a comparison to an objective standard, the judgment leaves less room for argument. The argument really lies in where the bar is set. But, there really is no question as to the basis for the judgment.
LikeLike
December 21, 2006 at 12:12 pm
So what did Jesus mean by “Judge not lest ye be judged”? Did he mean, do not judge other people’s hearts? Well, can’t we tell a person’s heart by their words and actions? Did he mean, don’t judge them to Hell? That doesn’t make sense, because we can’t send people to hell anyways – but I guess we do put people there with gossip. So what exactly did he mean?
LikeLike
December 22, 2006 at 9:14 am
“Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.” (John 7:24 NKJV)
LikeLike
March 21, 2007 at 8:04 am
Discernment is what we want … not to judge as in giving someone a sentence … but to have discernment, to recognize good, evil, good fruit, etc.
I think that the word JUDGEMENT is being used in place of discernment, or making assessments. I believe that when Jesus says “judge not lest ye be judged” he meant not to “sentence” one another, as in determine form and length of punishment.
LikeLike
March 28, 2007 at 1:47 am
Andy,
No, I’m not employing a relativistic idea of good and bad in which I judge Person X to be better than Person Y, relative to Person Y (where Hitler is good compared to Stalin, and I am evil compared to Mother Theresa). I am saying that the law of non-contradiction requires that an acknowledgement of the good is an acknowledgment of the bad. How? If X is good, then not-X is not good = bad. When we say Person X is good because he does A,B, and C, we are acknowledging that Person Y who fails to do A,B, and C is not good because –A, -B, –C is not good.
An affirmation that something is good is an affirmation that it is not bad, but its negation is. If I say Joe is good because he does not lie, cheat, steal, and kill, then I am implicitly acknowledging that those who practice such things are not good. Which is why I say you cannot affirm the good without implicitly affirming that some things are bad/evil. Such an affirmation is a moral judgment. Judging is inescapable. Without it, we cannot say someone is good at all. We are morally paralyzed.
I’m not so sure that those who say we have no right to judge only mean that we have no right to set the moral bar as high as we do. I think that may be part of it at times, but it goes beyond that. That sort of response is usually given on an issue-by-issue basis (micro level). On issue A,B, and C they allow you to judge, but not on D because they believe D goes beyond your ability to make moral judgments. I would agree with this sort of judgmental objection. There are some judgments we are not justified in making, and people can rightly be called out for those.
I’m talking about those whose moral philosophy entails supposed moral neutrality, in which no moral judgments can be made at all. Not only is one prohibited from saying D is wrong, but they are prohibited from saying A,B, and C are wrong as well. That sort of a system is untenable.
Jason
LikeLike