Judgment
The bible says "Judge not, lest ye be judged." Ayn Rand says, "Judge and be prepared to be judged." But, where does judgement start and end. How about the guy in the neighborhood who refuses to keep up with the Joneses? He's the guy with the 10 year old clunker in his driveway. How about the woman who dresses like a girl half her age? We make judgments constantly and some we might even act upon. The question then arises as to what do we judge that warrants action and what doesn't?
What does warrant judgement, someone intentionally doing harm to another. Harm can come in many forms.
The reason I posted this is that I find so many that I communicate with who cannot seem to differentiate between which judgments require action and which do not. In Objectivist-Land I expect the answer you gave, but to get more juice out of it, I'd like more examples, probably more subtle than my examples.
Pot is far less harmless than alcohol both in terms of individual health and public danger, yet this plant that exists in nature is banned while distilling and brewing isn't.
My "rights" end at my property, whether that is my physical body or my house, etc... I have no care if someone does drugs in my neighborhood. But, you break into my garage to steal tools to sell to support your habit and I'll shoot you in the face.
1. an act or instance of judging.
2. the ability to judge, make a decision, or form an opinion objectively, authoritatively, and wisely, especially in matters affecting action; good sense; discretion: a man of sound judgment.
In America, "judgment" is the only acceptable spelling. Many people make the mistake of adding the e, which is also found in British usage. Eventually "judgement" will make its way into an acceptable alternative, along with acknowledgment/acknowledgement and other confusions in the English/American language. If enough people get it wrong, that makes it right.
The two ways are judging. Before facts in evidence are presented and after facts in evidence are presented.m(or acquired and verified.) Pre Judice commonly known as prejudice, and Post Judice.
Our legal system based at least at one time on morals, values and ethics, Does probable cause exist? Is there reasonable doubt?
The procedure applies anywhere and to everything. Should be easy.
Back to the courts as a metaphor. Heidi Fleiss is charged with pandering and with tax evasion. the evidence supports the charges. However the along the way I added some thing to my moral code and ethical standards that wasn't apparent to anyone else.
Pandering? To whom? One of the co-conspirators was present in court a self confessed active participant. But was not charged. Conclusion the proposed action was not equal it didn't not apply in all similar circumstances it was therefore not useful. Not Guilty!
As for income tax I wouldn't vote guilty no matter who was being charged. I voted the system of income tax guilty instead. Not Guilty.
I was not on those juries. But it's an example of warranted action or inaction. Does it meet your moral and ethical standards. Each case is different.
In a court we're given a way to vote for or against the merits of the law itself. With out the draft in effect we're given a way to support or not support some government and of course the nation. Enlist or walk away. In the court that will be held less than a year from now we have the same duty...to our own moral and ethical standards. We are judging ourselves first and the candidates second. So far...None of the Above meets my standards. How low are yours?
1)Is that person's actions right now the beginning of a physical attack on me or my property, that I need to defend against?
2)Does that person choose to not respond to the world around him with rational, logical reason, that I should then ignore?
That doesn't mean that I won't act on my personal preference and prejudice.
turn into a worm and die off. . my jeep is 38 years old
and carries the license plate "nelybel" in honor of the
old Roy Rogers Show jeep ... I'm the guy! -- j
.
to make 'em run. . the jeep gets about 15 whether you're
pulling something or not. . it's tough, like the Hudson. -- j
.
Another common one is the popular "Thou shalt not kill" when in fact an accurate translation is "Thou shalt not murder."
That being said, I am increasingly aware that the 'superficial' judgments we are supposed to refrain from are actually important metrics.
For example: A person with an 'old clunker'. Does this person realize that he is unable to get a date because the quality of woman he looks at is unimpressed by his vehicle (and clothes, which are 'old clunker' too). How does this effect me as his neighbor? It means that this is someone who is oblivious to how human beings judge on appearance. If I interact with this person, I need to be prepared to deal with this huge lacuna in his psyche.
Similarly, the woman who dresses like a teen or the guy who's speedo you cannot see but for his pot belly overhanging it. These are people who have some defect in their vision of reality, and a wise person will take this into consideration when dealing with them.
It is cosmically true that there should be no designated 'teen dress code' or 'correct car age', but there is actually such a thing in effect in our culture. If someone broadcasts that they are outside of 3SD from the local norm, you are advised to understand 'why' in order to interact with them effectively.
Do not ignore input from observation in order to maintain a politically correct philosophy.
Jan
If we make our judgments against reality, our judgments will be well-founded on correct premises and principles and will reflect that same reality.
Question: "How about the guy in the neighborhood who refuses to keep up with the Joneses? He's the guy with the 10 year old clunker in his driveway."
Incorrect Premise: Having all new automobiles is an accurate measure of a person's utility or value.
Correct Premise: Have we actually gotten to know that person and see what is unique or special about that individual?
Question: "How about the woman who dresses like a girl half her age?
Incorrect Premise: There is a certain acceptable "look" for women of any particular age.
Correct Premise: Are a person's looks indicative of their personality or value, or merely a symptom of trying to draw attention?
The presence of or the lack of organization is irrelevant.
Well, let's talk about judgment. If I judge that the person I am talking to is merely misguided and is open to new thoughts and experience, I might take the time to do a bit of teaching. If the ripostes are mostly questions then I know I'm right in my judgement. If they are merely argumentative, I can either argue back or walk away. Usually walk away because its not worth the effort in most cases.
Following the quotes of our training sergeant on the demo range. ANY problem can usually be solved with a stick of dynamite. Some take two or three. Dynamite comes in many forms. Some verbal and some action. Such as turning around walking away with hands thrown in the air saying, "Is that fool still talking to himself? You may insert freaking and exchange him for her or it.
However, the pummeling he gets in my head is Rocky Balboa quality.
I can't take anything seriously that replaces one perceived fault with a worse version. PerSON PerSON is there a PerDAUGHTER I dont THINK so... Wait Person? I don't want to wait I want service. etc. One wonders if they ever opened a dictionary. I've yet to be unable to find a gender non specific version and they don't sound STUPID!
pu·sil·lan·i·mous
ˌpyo͞osəˈlanəməs/
adjective
adjective: pusillanimous
showing a lack of courage or determination; timid.
synonyms: timid, timorous, cowardly, fearful, faint-hearted, lily-livered, spineless, craven, shrinking; More
Cavil
il
ˈkavəl/
verb
3rd person present: cavils
1. make petty or unnecessary objections.
"they caviled at the cost"
noun plural noun: cavils
a. objection seen as petty or unnecessary.
Waiter: May I help you?
Son: Yes, do you have scruples?
Waiter: I don't think so.
Son: Will you please ask the Chef if he has scruples.
So the waiter reluctantly goes into the kitchen and comes back.
Waiter: No sir, the chef has he doesn't have scruples.
Son (in a very loud voice): What? No scruples? I won't eat in any restaurant that doesn't have scruples.
He then gets up and storms out. I had no choice but to follow. We picked up some tacos on the way back to the office.
1)Is that person's actions right now the beginning of a physical attack on me or my property, that I need to defend against?
2)Does that person choose to not respond to the world around him with rational, logical reason, that I should then ignore?
That doesn't mean that I won't act on my personal preference and prejudice.
As long as you don't do it near me, you can smoke until you lungs dry up, and I'd never say a thing to you about it. Nor would I tell the spandex fat lady anything. One tenet I "religiously" adhere to is MYOB Mind Your Own Business. That and saying no to whoever I damn well please says it all.
"Halfway there I started sailing faster"
"Three quarters of the way there I was passing up power boats."
"Seven eighths of the way there I had changed landfall to the nearest port and has been offered a spot on an America's Cup team."
15/16ths I used the radio and reserved immediate haulout for new bottom paint and a case of Marlboro Reds."
"I take it the plan didn't work?"
"What gave you that clue.?"