Exercising Judgement

There are some who, in today’s highly opinionated world, shy away from taking a stand against something, especially when they feel that they would thereby be judging a person or group.

In one respect this could be consider noble in that they do not wish to criticize or condemn. But it is something else when one refrains from taking a stand on any matter because they don’t want to be judgmental. Such thinking shows a lack of understanding of the important difference between exercising judgement and judging (i.e. criticizing or condemning).

The exercise of judgement is an integral and necessary survival skill with which all humans are endowed. As such, it should be developed and perfected. We exercise judgment about whether something is good or bad for us. We exercise judgment in trying to help or guide those who are not yet mature enough to make competent decisions. As we become more discerning in our exercise of judgement we grow mentally and psychically and thereby mature. Therefore, exercising judgement is good and healthy for our Spiritual growth. By contrast, judging (criticizing or condemning) seldom helps the target to change for the better, i.e. towards self-improvement. If anything, it ends up being counterproductive. Thus judging is bad and not helpful.

Another important thing to consider is that exercise of judgement is directed inwardly, that is, it helps one to extract the beneficial lessons from what one see’s in one’s environment. This recognition or appreciation may not require one to speak about it. But if the need arises to speak, and especially if others could benefit from one’s discernment, it is only proper that it should be shared. Sharing does not necessarily require a commentary about the character of the person or event that has led the observer to the newly gained insight.

On the other hand, criticism or condemnation is directed outwardly, at a person or group. Often it is tinged with prejudice and is done, at best, in the mistaken notion that one can force another to change by pointing out their short comings to them. But as we all know, such unwelcome intrusion generally elicits a negative response. This very common response should reaffirm for us that change can only come through personal recognition, and it is seldom that a person will change until they are willing and ready to exercise their own judgement.

Today, many bemoan the rapid rate at which standards are falling. But, at the same time, many who complain are reluctant to take a public stand against the falling standards of which they speak privately. All in the name of not wishing to judge. To justify this position of “not being judgmental”, the Christian will quote biblical passages about forgiveness or not casting the stone. The modern day free Spirit will reference Psychology pointing to stifling of individuality and self-expression. Yet, if we take a close look at what Christ said to the adulteress whom he saved from stoning, He said, “go ye and sin no more”. This clearly shows that he acknowledged her sin to her. With that he helped her to see and exercise her own judgement about her actions. Yet, he did not condemn her.

So, one could well ask: “what is it that holds otherwise serious people from holding back on voicing an opinion of what they confess in private as not appropriate”? Could it be fear that we may not be able to set aside our prejudice if we were to express our judgement on the matter? Or is it out of a deep seated empathy with that which is making us uncomfortable? In our current environment, there is also a real fear of being canceled, or even sued, prosecuted and jailed for expressing one’s judgement in opposition to the “consensus” or  on a matter that has been “settled” by the “experts”. Nevertheless, we should recognize that excessive caution leads to inactivity and the risk of being unable to take a stance on any matter. This, unfortunately, gradually weakens our ability to exercise sound judgement.

The foregoing should not be interpreted as supporting or justifying taking a dogmatic position, in the belief that one is exercising judgement. Such an attitude creates intransigence and can lead to violent clashes of views, as we are witnessing around the world with regard to COVID-19, abortion, gender, race, etc.

First off, it should be said that upholding any position that leads to violence or intransigence is wrong. The exercise of good judgement should always contribute to peace and genuine problem solving, which can only lead to up building for the individual and society.

Let us take the COVID-19 controversy as an example. The contentions regarding this issue can be boiled down to (1) claims of violation of individual rights by those who do not believe in vaccinations or curtailing of movement due to quarantine (2) concern about the indiscriminate application of the vaccination and (3) the perceived need to protect the public from further spreading of the disease. Other talk about the origin of the virus, its pathogenesis or the motivations behind the government programs and actions, are simply arguments put forth to support one position or to discredit the other.

Now, let us take a closer look at these positions.

First of all, in order for society to function smoothly and harmoniously, individual rights must be balanced against the rights of others, so as to arrive at an overall common good. It is very clear that nature has created a situation in which we all experience and live different circumstances. This situation appears to pit us against each other, and some use it to support their philosophy of conquest and domination. Others, the sages especially, point out that this is nature’s way of giving us an opportunity to learn understanding and support for one another, and thus raise the moral and Spiritual standing of the individual and society. Therefore, any position that rigidly insists on upholding individual rights, no matter how well verbalized violates this basic learning principle of nature.

This logic can be applied in assessing the position of the first group in the COVID-19 controversy. The salient points here are that, regardless of the origin of the virus, there was more than ample evidence that many people were dying from this strange and sudden phenomenon. Again, regardless of our suspicions of motivations, efforts were made to combat this disease using the methodology to which science is accustomed at this time. Although not perfect, the vaccine, in combination with quarantine was sincerely believed by the experts and appeared to control and manage the rapid spread of the disease. Therefore, an objective person would have to admit that it was only logical for the health authorities to quickly adopt this regiment in order to safeguard the public against the alarming and rapid spread of what was deemed a deadly infection. Were the disease slow spreading and less virulent, perhaps science and the public health officials would have had more time to test and evolve a less dramatic regiment for managing the disease. Furthermore, since the virus does not recognize or respect individual rights, anyone holding this position could just as well be infected, and thus the spread the disease, regardless of what they believe. Hopefully this puts into perspective the unsoundness of this first position, when considered against the overall common good, or the Spiritual injunction of being our brother’s keeper. Jesus Christ's advise to render unto Cesar what belongs Cesar may also apply here. If we recall it was given to the Jews who felt that the heavy imposition of taxes by their Roman overlords was unfair and to be disobeyed. Is this not similar today's sense of an onerous and unjustified imposition of COVID vaccination and restriction of movement by government with respect to this matter? No doubt, there was wisdom in Christ's advice, whose exploration and explanation in greater detail would take us too far afield of our subject. But, given the similarity of the Jews’ circumstance to our COVID-19 controversy, shouldn't the same advice apply in this case?

The position against indiscriminate application of the vaccine may be more tenable. But even this is worthy of further analysis. There were those for whom the vaccine posed an existential threat in that it could compromise their immune system. No doubt, this posed and still poses a dilemma to the individual concerned and the public health authorities. That is, whether to avoid compromising the person’s immune system by exempting them from vaccination, and run the risk of them getting infected to pass on the disease, and most likely dying if infected? That such a difficult and sad situation was/is used as fodder to fuel a controversy is very sad. The parties concerned were/are dealing with very weighty considerations and do not need the distraction of a controversy. Imagine if you were faced with this dilemma? True, the individual needs to make the life or death decision for themselves. But, in so doing they also have a responsibility to protect others from the probable fall out of their choice. Thus, it would be irresponsible to choose, for valid medical reasons, not to take the vaccine but also take a position against imposed or self-quarantine, at least until it was safe to mingle again in public. This is again a case of a selfish desire for un-curtailed freedom of movement at the expense of a neighbor’s health, in violation of being thy brother’s keeper.

Finally, one cannot ignore or avoid questioning the financially profligate manner in which governments pursued and managed COVID-19. The many cited cases of financial abuse and applications of double standards, especially around quarantine did not help the efforts of those who were genuinely trying to combat what they saw as a dangerous epidemic. The hypocrisy or greed that fueled the position of such public officials or businesses cannot in anyway be described as a sound exercise of judgement!

In concluding this analysis, it needs to be pointed out that the best yard stick for evaluating the soundness of one’s judgement is by an honest acknowledgement of one’s motivation in adopting a position:, is it driven by selfness or by the need for the overall common good, i.e. being my brother’s keeper?. But, for us to become adept at this, we must become attuned to the Spiritual laws of Creation, the paramount one of which is Love, as is in being thy brother’s keeper. Needless to say, when we develop this level of maturity, all controversies will cease as we will exercise judgements and take positions that aim for the overall common good. Since the Spiritual Laws uphold and maintain creation, any decisions or positions based on them will certainly further our growth and that of our neighbor and eliminate controversy, criticism or condemnation of our neighbor.

We learn in the book “In The Light of Truth” (The Grail Message) that anything that we see or encounter in life is a learning opportunity. Even that over which we are reluctant to exercise judgement is meant to help us gain insight about our neighbor, and foremost about ourselves, and ultimately about our motivations. If we shy away from scrutinizing something because we do not wish to Judge or be judged, we inadvertently miss the learning opportunity that it presents to us. As demonstrated in the COVID example, if we are not careful to recognize our true inner motivation in exercising judgment we end being driven by selfish motives, and miss the opportunity to learn love and consideration for our fellow human beings.

From this perspective, it would seem that the first step is to strive to recognize and overcome whatever it is that makes us prone to condemn or criticize, or that compels us to pursue selfish desires on any issue. As we succeed in doing this we will gradually free up our true power to exercise judgements that will be in harmony with the Spiritual law of Love on everything that we encounter, good or bad. With that, we can truly begin to discern and learn from every experience in life. And since the focus of discernment is internal, we will gain greater insights into our own selves and better understanding of our fellow human beings and their challenges. Needless to say, in a less prejudiced environment it becomes easier to accept our own faults and to exercise judgment, but, not judge i.e. criticize or condemn.