|
So I was having a discussion with my brother about a number of things and I was just curious if TL could weigh in on a few, just to give me a broader perspective.
1) He made the statement that you should not complain about things that you can take action against but you don't. This was specifically in reference to my dislike for people that litter and a complaint I was making about a person on the train that took up way more room than he probably should have by stretching his legs in a wide fashion with his arms bent outwards.
He claims that I have no right to complain about the guy on the train since I didn't ask him to move his limbs within the boundaries of his space or at least spread myself out as well to attempt to annoy him back. Apparently he thinks I'm being passive aggressive.
He also claims that I have no right to complain about people littering unless I either go tell them not to litter or go pick it up myself.
With regards to the train guy, I said I was simply tired and it wasn't worth the trouble. Instead I just pulled in my limbs and slept. Regarding the littering, I don't think it would be safe to approach random people in the NYC subways about that and I don't think it's my responsibility to clean up after them. Even though I do occasionally throw out the newspapers or cups that people leave on the train if it's near me.
2) This lead to me stating that I do feel people littering and other small inconsiderate things people do says something about the person's character. He says I can't judge people like that as we obviously have a very different moral set. I'm of the mindset that something like littering is a universally bad but generally considered minor thing that is easily avoided with minimal effort. As such people that do litter intentionally are willfully and intentionally doing something bad and as such I feel that says something about their character.
Anyway, just some random thoughts and discussions. I'd be interested to know other people's thoughts on this, agree or disagree.
I've been accused on numerous occasions of being overly righteous. I generally wouldn't deny that.
|
1) There's nothing wrong in complaining but it depends on what extent you do it.
2) Then what do we judge people on? One can't just say that one's moral set is different and therefore judging others is unfair. However, once again, it depends on what extent you do it.
|
On June 17 2009 11:02 BanZu wrote:
1) There's nothing wrong in complaining but it depends on what extent you do it.
2) Then what do we judge people on? One can't just say that one's moral set is different and therefore judging others is unfair. However, once again, it depends on what extent you do it.
1) Literally, "There was this guy that was sitting like this *imitates* on the train, was fucking annoying. Seriously? Who sits like that? Hope he dies in a fire." Last part was obviously an exaggeration, it's part of my humor. But that was it.
2) I'd say it's pretty hard to measure to what extent I use something like littering to judge someone. Difficult to put into words.
|
1.) Complaining's only drawback is the opportunity cost of time that could've been spent doing something productive. In the case when you wouldn't have done something productive anyhow, there's nothing inherently destructive about complaining, in fact it can serve to propagate your values (here, that littering is destructive) which, we will assume for the sake of argument, is a good thing.
2.) There is nothing wrong is judging people as best as you can. Even if your perspective or value set is somehow flawed relative to some perfect, objective perspective or value set, humans can't be expected to hold such a perspective, merely strive for it. Additionally, exercising judgment exercises one's perception, and offers more chance for one to examine his or her own perspectives, and thus contribute to changing them, whether for good or for bad.
Opposition to judgment equates to opposition to the assessment of information, to the exercise of reason, and to the establishment of conclusions. Sentience cannot even crawl without judgment.
Yes, I get very annoyed at people who say, "Don't judge x or y." It's little removed from, "Turn off your brain with regards to x or y."
|
1) Don't agree with your brother at all. "Take action" is not a binary thing--you can or you can't--there's a continuum of levels of ease to take action. Getting in the guy's face and telling him "Please don't spread your legs that way" may not have met your threshold for "worth taking action" but that doesn't mean it's not annoying enough to complain about.
2) I believe that the only thing we can judge people on is consistency--i.e. do they meet their own moral standards. So strictly speaking, your brother would be right that they may have a different moral standard--one that doesn't mind litter from others and doesn't scruple at littering themselves, which would mean that as far as judgment goes, they are doing nothing wrong.
On the other hand, these people surely know that littering bothers some people, and were they considerate of that, they wouldn't litter despite the fact that it doesn't bother them. So it is fair to judge them inconsiderate, IMO. (I'm muddying the waters by using the word "judge" again. To be clear, I don't think you can say that they are doing wrong, but you can say that they could be doing better, which is a distinction that many people have made before me.)
3) I don't agree at all with what EchOne says:
Opposition to judgment equates to opposition to the assessment of information, to the exercise of reason, and to the establishment of conclusions. Sentience cannot even crawl without judgment.
Yes, I get very annoyed at people who say, "Don't judge x or y." It's little removed from, "Turn off your brain with regards to x or y."
I think that everyone should aspire to the trait of witholding judgment. That doesn't mean "turn off your brain"--it means assess the information you have, but bear in mind that you don't have all of it, and unless you need to make a decision about something, don't come to firm conclusions.
|
Excuse me? Withholding judgment implies that a judgment has been made. I think we can agree that all human judgments can be improved upon because no human has perfect information, but nothing about that indicates that no judgment should be made. And whether or not judgments should be made has no bearing on how one chooses to utilize them.
Many people seem to operate under the strange understanding that just because they have made a judgment, it becomes some sacred, fact-like piece of data in their head. Absolutely not. There is nothing immutable about judgments, just as there should be nothing immutable about the current pool of information anyone has access to.
And on the point that the "only thing we can judge people on is consistency": So it is unfair to judge people otherwise? To work with a less abstract definition of judge, how do you expect legal systems to operate as intended when the majority of their work is unjust?
I don't give a damn what a man's moral code is, it is irrelevant to my right to evaluate one of his actions as hilarious or heinous or whatever I felt. Is it "unfair" of me to evaluate the Armenian Genocide as tranquil or progressive? My evaluation is not an overt action, so it violates only moral codes whose dictates reach into peoples' minds. Its central flaw is this: it is, by nearly all accounts, totally inaccurate.
Inaccurate evaluations and under-informed judgments breed much bigotry, hatred, and misunderstanding in human society. Does this situation somehow create a moral imperative to not judge people? When all evaluations and judgments can be edited or overwritten, it should be clear that the initial ones alone don't necessitate the problem: it's humans' recalcitrance towards reforming their preconceptions.
A less abstract angle: when you meet someone, you can either a.) make a judgment, or b.) attempt to assume absolutely nothing (your mind won't actually do this). With a.), you are actually encouraged to think more about the person in question, though with limited information your conclusions may not be accurate. With b.), you are saved from inaccurate conclusions, but neither do you make any attempt to understand the person. Logically, the more you continue to make judgments, the more you contemplate his or her motivations, and the more likely you are to understand them.
The problem is, of course, that in real life people are lazy and will not continue to reevaluate anything once they've formed a notion of that thing in their heads. They will assume that a person or idea is the same as they assessed it when they first encountered it, resulting in rampant inaccuracies.
Still, I don't agree with constructing normative codes to cater to actual tendencies. Society cannot progress when morals are built around assumptions like divine leadership, female inferiority, or slavery.
I can't reply tonight since I need to wake early for work tomorrow, but I'd love to continue discussion later.
EDIT: I can't proofread before I post. There are probably one million errors here, but whatever, goodnight.
|
I automatically think less of someone who smokes.
Hope that helps 
|
On June 17 2009 13:10 HuskyTheHusky wrote:I automatically think less of someone who smokes. Hope that helps
I automatically think less of people who smoke or litter. Sometimes I feel bad about being judgmental, sometimes self righteous. Such is life I suppose.
|
you should tell your brother that Hitler's moral set was different
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
