Critiquing: Judging Hurts People, so It’s Okay for Me to Judge You for Judging

August 28, 2023 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Judgment Paradox — Logical Inconsistencies — Unsubstantiated Claims — Cognitive Biases — Testing Promises

---

Introduction

The content titled “Judging Hurts People, so It’s Okay for Me to Judge You for Judging” discusses the claim that judging others is morally wrong and explores responses to accusations of judgmental behavior, especially from a Christian perspective. This critique will evaluate the logical coherence, identify logical fallacies and cognitive biases, and discuss the need for substantiating claims.

Outline and Explanation

Logical Inconsistencies

Self-Refuting Argument:

The primary argument in the content revolves around the paradox of judging someone for being judgmental. This self-refuting nature is acknowledged but not adequately addressed.

“It’s okay to judge people for judging in order to stop from judging, I guess.”

This creates a logical inconsistency where the act of judging is simultaneously condemned and justified. A more coherent stance would involve either consistently opposing judgment or providing clear criteria for when judgment is permissible.

Equivocation Fallacy:

The content uses the term “judgment” ambiguously, leading to an equivocation fallacy. Judgment in a moral sense is conflated with simple discernment.

“A judgment is an assessment of something either true or false or right or wrong.”

This blurs the line between necessary discernment (e.g., moral evaluations) and morally charged judgmental attitudes, which the critique fails to clearly delineate.

Cognitive Biases

Confirmation Bias:

The content displays confirmation bias by selectively interpreting biblical passages to support its stance on judgment. For example, it cites:

“Judge with righteous judgment.”

This cherry-picking overlooks broader contextual teachings that might advocate for a more nuanced understanding of judgment.

Ingroup Bias:

The argument often appeals to the perspectives and assumptions of a specific ingroup (Christians), potentially alienating those outside this group and undermining the universality of the argument.

“The problem is they’re not equally applying the principle here.”

This statement assumes that all readers share the same foundational beliefs, which can lead to biased reasoning and exclusionary logic.

Unsubstantiated and Dubious Claims

Moral Authority:

The content asserts a moral authority based on religious texts without providing empirical or logical substantiation for why these texts should be universally accepted as authoritative.

“This is God’s plan and it’s His good plan. It’s for human flourishing that we do best under this plan.”

Such claims require substantiation beyond religious texts to be compelling to a broader audience. Without evidence, these assertions remain unconvincing to those who do not share the same religious convictions.

Harm and Morality:

The argument suggests that certain behaviors (e.g., homosexuality) are inherently harmful without providing empirical evidence to support this claim.

“What they’re doing is hurting people.”

The obligation to substantiate this claim lies in providing clear, evidence-based reasons for why such behaviors are harmful, rather than relying on religious doctrine alone.

Testing Alleged Promises

To evaluate the validity of any alleged promises or moral claims, it is essential to adopt empirical methods and evidence-based reasoning. For instance:

Empirical Studies:

Conducting sociological and psychological studies to examine the impact of various behaviors on individual and societal well-being can provide evidence to support or refute moral claims.

Philosophical Analysis:

Engaging in rigorous philosophical analysis to test the logical consistency and ethical implications of moral positions can help clarify their validity.

Mapping Belief to Evidence

The degree of belief in any claim should be proportional to the degree of evidence available. This principle is crucial for maintaining logical coherence and intellectual integrity:

Evidence-Based Belief:

“We should map our degree of belief to the degree of available evidence.”

This statement underscores the necessity of grounding beliefs in robust evidence. Claims lacking substantial evidence should be held tentatively or revised in light of new information.

Critical Examination:

Regularly re-evaluating beliefs and being open to evidence-based revision is essential for avoiding dogmatism and maintaining logical coherence.

Conclusion

In summary, the content titled “Judging Hurts People, so It’s Okay for Me to Judge You for Judging” presents several logical inconsistencies and cognitive biases, particularly in its handling of judgment and moral authority. The self-refuting nature of the primary argument, coupled with confirmation and ingroup biases, undermines its logical coherence. Unsubstantiated claims regarding moral authority and harm further weaken the argument. To strengthen such positions, it is crucial to adopt evidence-based reasoning, engage in empirical testing, and ensure that beliefs are proportionate to the available evidence.

---

I invite further discussion on these arguments in the comments section to explore these critiques more deeply and consider additional perspectives.