↩ Homepage of the site 'What to do with your life?'
      

Don't judge

What we usually mean by 'not judging': not expressing a negative opinion about a person.
What we should mean by 'not judging': not opposing what should be to what is.

The hidden motivations behind the injunction not to express a negative opinion concerning a person

At first glance, 'Don't judge others' may seem like a sign of tolerance, and is generally claimed as such.
Except that when we look more closely, the motivations which lead to promoting the freedom of each person to think what they want, and act as they wish, are generally:

To better explain this concealment of real intentions, let us recall that there are two major strategies of deadly alliances, which are two sides of the same coin:

In both cases, it was enough to place a belief, or a rule (not to judge), above the facts, to be able to judge on an arbitrary basis (a belief or a rule).

The injunction 'not to judge' therefore appears to us above all to be a fundamentalism of the well-off; to the slogan 'it is forbidden to prohibit' from 1968, we could very well oppose 'do not judge on the basis of not judging'.
The demand for tolerance ultimately turns out to be what differentiates the wealthy from the elites whose action consists mainly of defending their privileges.

However, when judging, it is appropriate to choose the criteria carefully:

Les motivations cachées derrière les jugements de ce qui n'est pas acceptable

Crier haut et fort que telle chose est absolument inacceptable, et éventuellement renforcer cette position par une critique du laxisme judiciaire vis à vis de cela, est bien souvent juste une manière de résoudre sa propre dissonance cognitive. Plus précisément, cette dissonance cognitive se situe entre, d'un coté les multiples choses révoltantes vis à vis desquelles on ne fait rien, ainsi que les nombreux petits arrangements que l'on fait pour améliorer sa position sociale via le jeu des alliances, et de l'autre l'image d'une personne globalement morale que l'on souhaite conserver de soi. Choisir un sujet et gesticuler bruyamment permet ainsi d'une part de se cacher à soi même tous les sujets sur lesquels on ose pas intervenir (voir la question 'C'est quoi un adulte ?'), et d'autre part se cacher tous les sujets pour lesquelles l'attitude que l'on adopte est difficilement défendable du point de vue de la morale (au sens de l'intérêt commun).

Dans une telle configuration de vie, hélas fréquente, on tend à effectuer une séparation entre d'un coté ce qui est moins moral que soi, que l'on qualifie d'inacceptable, et de l'autre ce qui est plus moral que soi, que l'on qualifie d'idéaliste ou d'extrême. C'est là que paradoxalement, on rejoint souvent le camp des 'ne pas juger les autres' sur presque tous les sujets sauf celui (ou les quelques) contre lequel (lesquels) on a choisi de partir ostensiblement en campagne.

Do not oppose what should be to what is

As soon as we interpose 'what should be' between ourselves and what is, we absolve ourselves of responsibility.

Remember that adopting the right attitude means applying Epictetus' recommendation: when faced with a problem, separate what depends on you from what does not depend on you. Fight with all your strength, your determination, and your intelligence on the part that depends on you, and not worry about the part that does not depend on you. However, as soon as we have interposed 'what should be' between ourselves and what is, we consider that the gap between what is and what should be does not depend on ourselves.

Here is an example of interposing what should be: “People should be less materialistic.” Once this judgment has been made, we exempt ourselves from the need to fight against inequalities, and first of all to put our own resources at the service of those most in need.

To be constructive, 'not judging' must therefore be understood in the form: not interposing 'what should be' between oneself and the observed reality.

Stoic morality can be summarized in the form: we do not choose our fate, we choose how we face it. However, Epictetus' formulation remains more educational.

Go deeper

View the questions:
The myth of listening and good atmosphere
What is Buddhist nonduality?
Que faut-il faire pour être quelqu'un de bien ?
C'est quoi un adulte ?

The article linked below describes and denounces, without formulating the concept, the alliance strategy in so-called tolerant mode:

↣ From eco-responsible, I went to unfrequented

The principle “observe and not judge” at the basis of Montessori education corresponds to the same concern to restore the preponderance of facts, to limit the reference to what should be.

Ce qui nous avons décrit ici est une constatation à la base de la psychothérapie Rational-Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT) mise au point par Albert Ellis :
« Ellis’s philosophy contains elements of constructivism. Specifically, Ellis maintained that all humans create ideas of how the world is or ought to be. »