Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (42183)	9/28/2013 12:55:39 PM
From: GPS Info	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

The precept: “Judge not, that ye be not judged” . . . is an abdication of moral responsibility: it is a moral blank check one gives to others in exchange for a moral blank check one expects for oneself. Not to be disagreeable, but I can't accept that view. We are constantly judging others, both consciously and unconsciously. We judge people as good or bad based on our particular moral and religious tenets, and other instinctive ways such as if a person is a threat or a friend or a benign stranger. We will judge people differently depending on our mood at any given moment, or in relation to some other person we know and have previously judged. The problem is that we are prone to facile judgements which have little or no lasting value, and often no immediate value other than self-satisfaction. We also make snap judgements based on appearance or speech. I know many people who have difficulty withholding a judgement and punishment until more information is available because, I theorize, of a certain impatience develops for a judgment against someone. This is likely an evolutionary survival instinct. So, I take the admonition of 'not judging' as a recommendation to not make snap judgments or facile judgments, unless you want others to make snap judgements against you. On the other side, a civil society must at times make judgments on the guilt or innocence of the accused. Here, a facile judgement might later be labeled as injustice and cause communal strife. The same might happen with incomplete information presented during the trial or if a witness perjures himself. For the sake of justice, I would want an impartial judge and jury (of sound minds) to make a civil judgment, and not some moody person off the street. It is not an easy task; it is not a task that can be performed automatically by one’s feelings, “instincts” or hunches. It is a task that requires the most precise, the most exacting, the most ruthlessly objective and rational process of thought. I completely agree with this idea, but I think it applies to the law and not to moral judgements. I want to emphasize that I expect a clear distinction between those judgments based on the law and those base on morality. The moral principle to adopt in this issue, is: “Judge, and be prepared to be judged.” I already understand and fully accept that I will be judged, sometimes fairly and sometimes not. I also accept that legal judgements against me may not reflect actual justice. I have not sat on a jury yet, but if I do, I will make a legal judgement when the time comes. Nonetheless, I will not make a moral judgement unless someone puts a gun to my head. The reason have I taken this view comes from my limited understanding of evolutionary biology, brain science and disease discoveries, the epigenetic effects on behavior of prenatal and acute childhood traumas, and drug addiction pathologies.