The justification of moral judgment

[greenberg]

So to me it is about what function the moral judgment is being used for? How is it playing out in power struggles and claims of entitlement.

Jesus' quote is a good use of this idea as an intervention. A woman is about to be stoned to death for (possibly) having done something that other people around her are also involved in, via direct action or strong desire. He interfered with a very harsh moral code where those making the judgments were going to abuse power. It was not simply their upsetness about her not respecting marriage. It was not a cheated on wife yelling in anger at the woman who slept with her husband. It was the unmaking of a human based on a hypocritical moral judgment.

But to be noted - There is a difference between making a moral judgment, and acting on that judgment in one way or another. Yet I often see that people think they are one, so "He that is without sin shall cast the first stone" is applied also to deter from making a moral judgment at all.
I make the moral judgment that eating meat is morally wrong; but I do not persecute people for it, I don't personally criticize meat-eaters. But given the chance, I would vote against building a slaughterhouse, or against a political candidate who supports meat-eating.

One problem I see with the model that one must be good to judge others is that those who are more self-aware are less likely to feel justified.

Absolutely.

If you can sense your own potential hypocrisy around an issue, can make connections between apparantly different but at root similar moral acts and deeply notice your own attitudes, reactions and actions

it is easier to notice the mote in your own eye.

Do we really want to keep people with these skills out of the ecology of moral discussion?

But what is the point of discussing moral issues to begin with? What can we hope to achieve with them?

 

[greenberg]

Okay, at what point do you stop putting your happiness/ well being above that of others?
When you're comfortable, when you're rich, when all the competition/ possible discomfort is eliminated?

This is a problem when we view ourselves and others materialistically - when we think a person is their body, their feelings, their thoughts, their possessions, their actions, their relationships.
And as long as we maintain such a materialistic outlook, one person's happiness always comes at the cost of another person's misery, in some way or another.

 

[greenberg]

I also think it is very hard to do. One can have the intention, but I think it generally happens after the fact. One makes the judgment and then judges one's own act of judgment. This latter can take the form of pointing out potential hypocrisies, making excuses for the other person or being a rule centered guilt that is more abstract.

I think it is fair to ask why this part of one thinks it has the right to just the whole person or other parts of that person. Why does the self get a negative priviledge? Or why does this part get one?

The answer to this depends on one's philosophy about what a self is, and how other phenomena relate to the self. Which is a tremendous topic ...