The justification of moral judgment

This is a spin-off to another recent thread. But I wanted to formalize the issue, without weighing it down politically or culturally as it is happening there.


There are two fairly common views:

"He who is without sin shall cast the first stone."

"We're all hypocrites, therefore, nobody has the right to criticize anyone or morally condemn anyone."

Is this true?
When, how, under what circumstances are we justified to make moral judgments?


Discuss, and try to remain as formal as possible. This thread isn't about individual instances of making moral judgments, but the purpose is to discuss the general principles of moral judgment, principles that can be applied generally whenever making moral judgments.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

We all fall short of our moral ideals from time to time (some of us, quite often) that does not imply we are not allowed to have moral ideals.

When that judgement extends to authority and punishment, however, the only moral judgments which should be made are against those causing harm to others intentionally or through thier negligence.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How hard should we hold others to our own moral ideals when we know we ourselves fall short of them?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Does the fact that I have stolen somehow relinquish my right to view murder as wrong?

 

Not all, but how much "right" do you have to condemn theft if you're thief?

I did ask "how hard" should we hold others...
Some people seem to hold others to higher standards than they accept for themselves.

 

There is the question of authority and punishment by Law, of course. I would say that in this regard, the Law is (ideally) a summary of moral principles of a society and as such can rightfully function as an authority to which all members of said society are held responsible to. Even when no individual member of said society lives up to the Law all the time.


Secondly, on an interpersonal level - Is it moral to be friends with someone who continually fails to live up to your moral standards, even when you yourself fail to live up to them? If you stay with that person, their failings will influence you negatively, and thus you will be even less likely to live up to your own moral standards; which will likely cause you to lower those standards - and this may be detrimental for you.
Denying your friendship to those who fail to live up to your moral standards is thus an act of self-preservation, and as such justified. But granted - such denying can be very hard on others, and it may even seem hypocritical as we ourselves fail to live up to our standards sometimes.

 

No less than if I were not.
If I consider it morally wrong, I have every right to condemn them.
However, if I do not condemn myself as well, I am a hypocrite.

It does seem that way, doesn't it?

Morality is pointless without society.
The definition of immoral, in my book, is an action which intentionally - or though negligence, causes harm to other members of said society.

I certainly can cause harm to others, while recognizing that it is immoral.

 

Agreed on the law.
On the interpersonal level:

Which isn't quite what you answered (as I see it anyway).

 

The thing is that if you want to improve, you have to hold others to higher standards than yourself. Because it is only this way that you will be able to choose wisely whom to associate with and whom not. And we cannot but associate with people; the question is only with whom and how much.
If you are a thief and you hang out with thieves, you'll remain a thief, even if you don't want to be a thief and think stealing is wrong.
If you want to stop stealing, then you would do good to condemn stealing, quite your old thieving friends and seek the association of those who don't steal - even if during this, you still steal sometimes. It's not likely that an old way of life can be given up overnight.

 

What does it help you to condemn yourself, to consider yourself a hypocrite?

Moreover, what does it help you to go public with this self-condemnation, especially in a society where others do not do this and use your self-condemnation against you?

 

Denying other people your friendship is an action based on your moral judgment.

Or did you mean things like - Is it moral to report to the authorities someone who steals, when you yourself are a thief?

 

If I do not condemn myself for actions which do not align with my moral code, I will not recognize what I did was wrong, and I will not aim to better myself in the future.
If, staying with the example of thieves, I consider stealing immoral, and refuse to condemn myself for stealing a car - then I sm simply justifying my actions, therefore I will continue to do so.
I did not say this self-condemnation need be a public announcement.
The only reason to make it a public condemnation is to save face and offer some sort of display of contrition.
If you publicly condemn others for issues of morality which you fall short, you will be seen as a hypocrite.
One can accept one's own condemnation without shouting it from the rooftops.

 

Then I'm fucked.
Why should I expect more of other people than I expect of myself?
If I know I can't match my own expectations how can I claim to be moral if I judge others by a standard that I can't meet?

No, see above.

 

Agreed.

No, I introduced the issue as I suspected that it would play a role in the topic.

Sure. But then there is also the specific case of discussing morality - we can witness this at the forums a lot.
In order to be seen as a competent interlocutor on matters of morality, one has to live up to one's own declared moral standards - otherwise, one is rightfully dismissed as an incompetent interlocutor on that topic of morality. In this case, such dismissal is not an ad hominem/ad personam.

But we all tend to fall more or less short of our own moral standards. But we discuss topics of morality anyway, declaring this as wrong and that as right. So we are all hypocrites.
But if we are all hypocrites, and incompetent, then what point and righteousness are there in (forum) discussions about morality?

Sure. But is it as efficient to do in privately as opposed to telling someone or even to an anonymous public?

 

Well, do you want to improve, do you want to become "a better person"?

If you start out by claiming that you are not moral - and actually believe that - then you have no chance of improving. It is prerequisite to improvement that you be moral to begin with.
(Yes, it's rather paradoxical.)

 

That's not the point (is it? Not how I see it).
Do I have any justification in holding other people to a higher standard than I know I can match?
What right do I have to expect people to meet MY expectations?
It's not about "improvement" it's about functioning in society.

In point of fact it's more the other way round

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I think the context matters. If I am using my judgment of you as corrupt for replacing you in a certain post and I am corrupt, I have no right to the chain of 'LOGIC' my judgment is a part of.

I don't think we want to take away people's moral reactions if they have done something bad. The bank robber who tackles someone beating up an old lady is, yes, making a moral judgment, but that is fine. The chain of logic and events produced by his moral judgment is fine - in my oh, so tainted moral opinion.

So to me it is about what function the moral judgment is being used for? How is it playing out in power struggles and claims of entitlement.

Jesus' quote is a good use of this idea as an intervention. A woman is about to be stoned to death for (possibly) having done something that other people around her are also involved in, via direct action or strong desire. He interfered with a very harsh moral code where those making the judgments were going to abuse power. It was not simply their upsetness about her not respecting marriage. It was not a cheated on wife yelling in anger at the woman who slept with her husband. It was the unmaking of a human based on a hypocritical moral judgment.

 

But we also need to be careful about creating a kind of legal precedent for tight-assed moral busybodies who control themselves and deny themselves and act 'perfectly'
having the right to judge others.
We all know someone who is very 'moral' and their mere presence in a room is desctructive despite the lack of moral wrongdoing.

I do not want this logic to support them in the way they stain the world.

 

One problem I see with the model that one must be good to judge others is that those who are more self-aware are less likely to feel justified.

If you can sense your own potential hypocrisy around an issue, can make connections between apparantly different but at root similar moral acts and deeply notice your own attitudes, reactions and actions

it is easier to notice the mote in your own eye.

Do we really want to keep people with these skills out of the ecology of moral discussion?

In fact, it seems like this is much of what happens and those who rise to power are often blissfully unaware of how similar they are to what they hate.

 

So I ask: