In religious and esoteric literature we often come across the adage ‘do not judge’. Undeniably it can be of interest not to judge. That way a religious person may be able to overcome his own resentment and the resentment of his fellow man, that he may live a quiet and more peaceful life. But can we always live up to this lofty ideal? And does not reality compel us to admit that we constantly make judgments, each minute of the day? Therefore let's investigate this ‘do not judge’, to see if the adage is a solid one. For a first investigation into the problem of the moral judgment these are some preliminary sketches.
Growth demands judgment. Judgment is a process of sifting out in order to reach intellectual and spiritual quality. Growth takes place by way of judging. Each choice is based on a positive and negative
judgment. If you
buy something you judge the quality of the products offered.
If you read something you judge the writings and set them
off against concepts, yours or others.
If you look at something,
you judge the beauty and the value of
the thing seen. If you come into contact with others, you judge
the quality of the conversations and the feelings shared. Sometimes
this may even provoke some condemnation that not needs to be purely
negative, but can
lead to a better understanding and a
better content of conversation. In short, to growth.Judgment is the basis for criticism and for critical sense. To be critical can be a positive quality, if it is not provoked by negativism and cynicism, but by an intelligence that remains always focused on true happiness and spiritual growth. Some people drive themselves mad judging. Then condemnation overrules positive judgment. Then the judgment ends up being one-sided. Then it's simply a case of pessimism, melancholy or an other mental disturbance overclouding the judgment.
Perhaps we have to replace the adage ‘do not judge’ with something like ‘postpone as much as possible a final judgment’ combined with another adage ‘be always prepared to adjust a temporary judgment’. After all, a judgment is not very different from a hypothesis. From science we learn that replacing and adjusting hypotheses yields in the end more knowledge and understanding. So we have to remain open in our act of judging. For we have to remain conscious of the fact that the human mind is always fallible and runs short in knowing the final ground of things. Thus to have final knowledge about the thing being judged is de natura impossible. A judgment would then have to be some kind of temporary working hypothesis, meant to provide our wandering mind with some temporary security.
‘Postpone as much as possible a final judgment’. For stiffness and rigidity are the greatest dangers in judging. The judgment is static. That makes judging such a tempting and attractive thing to do. A judgment is clip and clear. The more positive a judgment, the more truth it appears to contain. But we do not realize the fact that a judgment in all its certainty is something death. But truth on the other hand is very much alive, it grows, it adapts itself and from different points of view it always shows new perspectives. In short, truth overtakes judgment always.
Thus judging entails great danger: rigidity, deadness, lack of growth, dogmatism, fanaticism, fundamentalism. Indeed, no small evils! Insomuch the adage ‘do not judge’ seems to be a sound one. But if we would imagine us a world lacking in judgment, then no lesser evils pop up in front of our mind's eye: inaccuracy, meaninglessness, a lack of distinction, a lack of communication, hesitation in taking position for a just cause etc. Communication and learning can only take place if there is something to communicate about. Content can only be communicable if it shows to a certain extent some form of certainty. We can only talk about something that is fixed (hopefully this is a slight exaggeration). About something that continuously changes it is difficult to talk. It seems as if our thought is only at ease when handling clearly defined notions, that only become communicable when isolated from other contents, in short, when we judge about our thoughts.
This is the greatest problem of our mind: it can only work according to the laws of the logic. But logic can only take place according to methods of separation and shifting. A is not B; when A then not B etc. The logical process is a critical process. The word critical comes from the Greek krinein that originally meant 'to separate, to shift, to isolate'. If one wants to be critical, logical one needs to be and vice versa. For fundamentally logic and criticism have the same characteristics.
So the striking conclusion is, that one can only be logical, that one can only communicate, if one judges! The adage ‘do not judge’ would thus finally lead to a suspension of all logic and of all communication. Each uttered notion is a judgment. For if a notion wants to be meaningful it needs to be isolated and defined from other notions.
So here the ‘judge not’ means something like ‘remain always open in your communication and in your thought’. ‘Never make your notions and ideas as rigid that they cannot be adjusted or complemented’. ‘Always consider a judgment to be a starting point whence further knowledge originates, but forget the starting point as soon as the voyage goes on’.
We must also consider whether the ‘judge not’ is more an ethical than an epistemological imperative. Perhaps this exhortation is more of interest in our contact with our fellow human beings than in our
thought
processes. We know from
daily experience that
we do not approve of everything men do and think.
It cannot be held that this is not a good course to follow. After
all there hides evil, stupidity and ignorance in men and we would
perhaps do no good if we would just let it be. In this case a
condemnation is certainly asked for. Perhaps this is the most
important working of such a
social phenomenon as ‘gossip’, that by means of strong
condemnations and disapprovals the culturally accepted moral values are
made clear. Seen as such, gossip seems to be some sort of a simplified
ethical
debate, in which knowledge is obtained about what's acceptable in a
particular culture on a particular moment. A too strict application
of the ‘do not judge’ would in this case prevent such knowledge coming
to the
surface, yes, would cause society to disintegrate.Judgment of others may also contribute to a better understanding of the self. This holds true especially for persons with no or little self-reflection, who need the mirror of the outside world to obtain some self-knowledge. Without reminding them of their shortcomings only limited growth would be possible. Here judgment of others facilitates self-correction and promotes growth.
Moral judgments can serve a higher cause by means of which mankind can grow. Condemnation of hatred, envy, cruelty, injustice etc. and approbation of love, sacrifice, helpfulness etc. all serve a higher cause. They support the evolution of the world and contribute to the welfare of the whole of mankind.
Let's consider the case of Adolf Hitler. Here our ‘judge not' would seem to be very inappropriate. This case seems to say 'judge by all means!'. The only benefit of this pathological case and of this black page in world history is simply our judgment. Without such a judgment mankind would never have had the moral growth we have seen the last decades. The UN as an institute stems from this judgment. Perhaps this is the only benefit Evil brings, that it makes us conscious of our need for condemnation. Without Evil we would never consciously choose the Good.
the Being of things. We may
judge
on the form level, perhaps because on this level the imperfection of
things appears (the same holds 
