There is some confusion that pops up whenever there’s a discussion of ‘being judgmental’. Some people distinguish between disagreement and condemnation and believe that you can strongly disagree with someone in a non-judgmental manner and others think of it as a package deal, where being non-judgmental is a trade-off between niceness and ability to form correct beliefs.
When I hear people talking about being nonjudgmental I tend to assume the first interpretation (which I also agree with). But being non-judgmental in that way might itself be an example of a weird, costly attitude. If others don’t share it, they will think that you are judging them and there’s no way of convincing them otherwise.
1) Making assumptions about people based on incomplete knowledge: judging character from the way someone dresses. Or thinking badly of someone for, say, alcoholism without knowing them and the circumstances they live in. Or judging a lifestyle without understanding it.
I’d define this as: “the sort of person who tends to make moral judgements based on insufficient evidence”. Seems like a reasonable accusation.
2) Treating oneself as the final arbitrator of right and wrong, deciding morality for others: “Who are you to say what is right?”
I’d code this as “anyone who makes moral judgements”. That doesn’t seem like a negative trait to me at all...rather, the usage of “don’t judge’ in this way seems like the moral equivalent of anti-epistemology. What gives?
The amalgam of the two definitions is “One who judges too much”, where Judgement is a high confidence statement about the moral status of a thing. So “you’re being judgmental” should be coded as “You are far too confident in your morality-related claim. Shame on you!” This makes sense to me...though it seems less like an actual argument and more like a statement of belief.
The seeming double meaning arises because some individuals believe that no one can make any moral claim with any confidence (especially when it comes to other people), while others believe in absolute God-given morality or absolute self-created morality. In fact, there is only one definition of the word, but the usage varies depending on the moral philosophy of the user.
Unfortunately in my experience, the majority of people who use “don’t judge” are using it as a rhetorical device to put a stop to moral conversations that they’d rather not have. It’s shorthand for, “Oh, you are trying making a moral judgement? But morality is relative anyway!” from a person who has no strong opinions and/or is largely naive to concepts in moral philosophy and thus is able to implicitly switch moral philosophies as it suits them in rhetoric without even realizing that they are doing it.
It’s a lot like “faith = trust without evidence” vs “faith = justified trust as a result of evidence” in this regard. The simple definition is “the belief that you can trust someone”, but one’s epistemology as to how one aught to form beliefs alter one’s usage of the word, and most people will use the “trust without evidence” version to implicitly switch epidemiological philosophies when it suits them in rhetoric.
Both interpretations are viable and can co-exist—depending on the matter under discussion.
It’s pretty easy for people to strongly disagree about e.g. the merits of a sports team without condemnation being involved.
It’s very hard for people to strongly disagree about e.g. slavery without condemnation being involved.
I think the relevant attribute is “seriousness” or importance. If you imagine a spectrum of importance from “I don’t really care” on one end and “I will die for this” on the other end, the closer you are to the don’t-care end the easier it is to disagree without judging. But the closer you get to the will-die-for-it end, the harder passionless disagreement becomes.
There is some confusion that pops up whenever there’s a discussion of ‘being judgmental’. Some people distinguish between disagreement and condemnation and believe that you can strongly disagree with someone in a non-judgmental manner and others think of it as a package deal, where being non-judgmental is a trade-off between niceness and ability to form correct beliefs.
When I hear people talking about being nonjudgmental I tend to assume the first interpretation (which I also agree with). But being non-judgmental in that way might itself be an example of a weird, costly attitude. If others don’t share it, they will think that you are judging them and there’s no way of convincing them otherwise.
The two contexts in which I see “judgemental”
1) Making assumptions about people based on incomplete knowledge: judging character from the way someone dresses. Or thinking badly of someone for, say, alcoholism without knowing them and the circumstances they live in. Or judging a lifestyle without understanding it.
I’d define this as: “the sort of person who tends to make moral judgements based on insufficient evidence”. Seems like a reasonable accusation.
2) Treating oneself as the final arbitrator of right and wrong, deciding morality for others: “Who are you to say what is right?”
I’d code this as “anyone who makes moral judgements”. That doesn’t seem like a negative trait to me at all...rather, the usage of “don’t judge’ in this way seems like the moral equivalent of anti-epistemology. What gives?
The amalgam of the two definitions is “One who judges too much”, where Judgement is a high confidence statement about the moral status of a thing. So “you’re being judgmental” should be coded as “You are far too confident in your morality-related claim. Shame on you!” This makes sense to me...though it seems less like an actual argument and more like a statement of belief.
The seeming double meaning arises because some individuals believe that no one can make any moral claim with any confidence (especially when it comes to other people), while others believe in absolute God-given morality or absolute self-created morality. In fact, there is only one definition of the word, but the usage varies depending on the moral philosophy of the user.
Unfortunately in my experience, the majority of people who use “don’t judge” are using it as a rhetorical device to put a stop to moral conversations that they’d rather not have. It’s shorthand for, “Oh, you are trying making a moral judgement? But morality is relative anyway!” from a person who has no strong opinions and/or is largely naive to concepts in moral philosophy and thus is able to implicitly switch moral philosophies as it suits them in rhetoric without even realizing that they are doing it.
It’s a lot like “faith = trust without evidence” vs “faith = justified trust as a result of evidence” in this regard. The simple definition is “the belief that you can trust someone”, but one’s epistemology as to how one aught to form beliefs alter one’s usage of the word, and most people will use the “trust without evidence” version to implicitly switch epidemiological philosophies when it suits them in rhetoric.
Both interpretations are viable and can co-exist—depending on the matter under discussion.
It’s pretty easy for people to strongly disagree about e.g. the merits of a sports team without condemnation being involved.
It’s very hard for people to strongly disagree about e.g. slavery without condemnation being involved.
I think the relevant attribute is “seriousness” or importance. If you imagine a spectrum of importance from “I don’t really care” on one end and “I will die for this” on the other end, the closer you are to the don’t-care end the easier it is to disagree without judging. But the closer you get to the will-die-for-it end, the harder passionless disagreement becomes.