Let me explain how I understand group judgmentalism - and groups of human beings in general.
Whenever we judge people by their group instead of individually we are wrong to do so. The reason is because people in groups are not all the same. Therefore, we are not judging based on truth. More typically, we are judging based on stereotypes o…
Let me explain how I understand group judgmentalism - and groups of human beings in general.
Whenever we judge people by their group instead of individually we are wrong to do so. The reason is because people in groups are not all the same. Therefore, we are not judging based on truth. More typically, we are judging based on stereotypes of people in the group. Group judgmentalism is always wrong no matter how the group is put together.
We are going to put people in groups, but it is the judging part that is harmful. "All white people are racist" is a group judgment that is itself racist - and cannot possibly be truth. Group judgmentalism is never good for society or human relations.
We also cannot judge groups of people when they are members of the group of their own free will.
Let's take something like a group of Christians. Are they all good people or bad people based on their group? No one could possibly say with certainty one way or another. It is almost certain that there are good and bad people in every group therefore a group judgment that all Christians are bad is wrong - even though they chose to be Christians.
Group judgmentalism of individuals is wrong - period. Judge every individual by their unique individual character and not by any group characteristic.
Lastly, it is important to remember that group judgmentalism in this context only applies to individuals in the group, not the group entity itself. A group as an entity is also not defined completely by a minority of members of the group since every group of human beings will have bad people in it. Groups are defined by the primary purpose of the group.
If an individual chooses to be in a group, say a person becomes a member of a church -- then that is an individual act of that person. If a person is aware of that churches history -- say it has a history of bigotry toward black people, like the Mormon Church -- then a person is responsible for choosing to express fealty and reverence to a group that has a history of a particular behavior. Let’s say the church decides to do some horrible things, say like Jim Jones’ cult -- members of the group that don’t condemn that group, that continue show allegiance to that group, should be judged for their allegiance, even if they specifically were not responsible for those things. If a person is a member of a gang, and they hang out with the gang members and express respect to the gang members, and show deference to gang leaders, but they themselves do not commit any crimes, they should not be judged for those specific crimes, but they should be judged for allying themselves with that group. It is an expression of a person’s character, and potentially personality, what groups they fraternize with. We absolutely should be judged by the people we choose to be loyal to and respect. It would be wrong and foolish not to judge people by the groups they choose.
If I meet someone and they tell me they regularly go to Klan meetings and burn crosses, but that they love black people, I can guarantee you they are going to be judged by me in a *negative* way because of their membership in the Klan and if you tell me that is wrong, I’m going to judge you *negatively* for telling me it is wrong.
Group judgements are wrong when they are about superficial traits that don’t have any logical relationship to a person’s character or personality, such as race. And they are additionally only wrong if they are bigoted--in the sense they do not change even after we learn more data about the person that challenges any prejudices.
We all have prejudices about people based on generalized groups they belong to and the experiences and data we have been exposed to. And these prejudices are *sometimes* a necessary and efficient heuristic (although also sometimes widely inaccurate) for making decisions that can often be very helpful for our safety. For example-- I am more likely to walk across the street at night in a sketchy neighborhood when I see a male walking toward me than a woman. If I see it is 4 males, it even increases more than if it is 4 females. That’s because I have a prejudice towards males regarding their likelihood of violence in sketchy places at night. That is a good prejudice to have; it can keep me from being mugged or worse. If those males feel offended by me avoiding them, they are at best naive about dangers. If I were to run into those males in the daytime and they turned out all to be awesome people after spending hours with them, and then I see them at night again, I wouldn’t avoid them. My prejudice is not bigotry.
If you were to tell me that I was wrong for crossing the street to avoid the males but not females, I’d call you an idiot and say your judgement of my behavior and prejudice was wrong.
Bigotry toward people because of a group they belong to is when our judgements don’t change about individuals despite new information about them that *should* invalidate our judgements if we were reasonable. Learning that the Klanman plays tennis with black people every weekend and is super respectful will not change my fundamental suspicion and dislike of him-- that’s not bigotry because the information isn’t strong enough to outweigh the fact that he hangs out with Klansmen burning crosses, a group that has a history of killing and terrorizing black people. Spending a few hours learning that the men at night who I avoided were all local college students at Berkeley who loved cats, and who spent their nights competing in programming tournaments and their weekends watching anime and discussing ethics would change my opinion of them such that I don’t avoid them in sketchy neighborhoods if I identify them. But if I can’t, cuz it’s too dark, well, I’m going to fall back to my *accurate-ish* prejudice about males. That is *wise*. Encouraging people to be fools is wrong. Well, unless, for example, we are spies and in a righteous war and we are encouraging our enemies to be fools to defeat them.
“Group judgementalism” is sometimes good for society, human relations, and the individuals doing the judging.
A lot of these choices about making judgments which you discuss here are very much context sensitive. Of course we make quick judgments -- ones that don't necessarily take context into consideration -- when we are in situations that could cause bodily harm.
In calmer situations we are called by ethics to read a situation -- or a person, or a group -- with more attention to nuance.
Also, in regards to judging people for allying with a group: there have been sages who walked among us -- Jesus comes to mind -- who hung out with some of the most despised members of society. The Black musician Daryl Davis has walked with Klan members and helped them see differently. He is an example of someone who disregards collective guilt in order to reach out to other souls. I would say he is a true healer.
I agree that we need to be tolerant of the intolerant in order to have a dialogue with them as Daryl Davis discovered. Daryl was able to demonstrate to KKK members that he was as human as they are by his unique individuality and not by any group membership. This is why judging by individual identity is so important.
Healing human relationships, especially after the bloodiest human century in history - the 20th, is the highest calling a human being can have. Throughout history there have always been people who want to divide and hate other people who are not part of their group. The healers have been rare - but we need more of them.
It’s unfortunate that the voluntary groups that have been among the worst about “dividing and hating other people who are not part of their group” throughout history, such as most major religions, specifically for stupid reasons, continue to attract and retain followers and apologists.
Daryl, didn’t simply “heal human relationships”, he also destroyed them, particularly the relationships between some klansmen. And also part of the transformation the klansmen took was them *renouncing the group they were once part of*. The ex-klansmen ended up “hating” the klan.
Sometimes, “the highest calling” can be the severing of toxic, abusive, or tyrannical relationships--and trying to heal them would be evil.
“Hate” is a fundamental human class of emotion, and there is no way to eliminate it--and it is sometimes right to express it. You revealed it in your comment referring to a people “who want to divide and hate other people”, juxtaposing them and their behavior with what you revere as the “highest human calling”, which appears to also be, probably not coincidentally, what you believe you are engaged in yourself—quite the high(est) opinion of your activity you have.
The doublethink is strong with you. Tell us, how low do you think it is to want to “divide and hate other people?” What do you think is the “lowest calling”? And explain how a person’s calling can be “the highest” and simultaneously this statement of yours can hold: “ Neither human being is better than the other or has more value. There is no hierarchy. “.
The word “higher” automatically creates a hierarchy conceptually—there can be no “high” without a “low”.
And if you are ascribing ethical judgements of peoples’ behavior and orientation as being “high” you are going to be projecting a hierarchy of value. Humans who are conceived as fulfilling “higher callings” are going to be perceived as being more praiseworthy than humans who are conceived as fulfilling “lower callings”. The term “sage”, for example is a title of *high* honor. People consider sages “wise”, and they are praised for it; they are revered. Other people though aren’t given such a title and they aren’t revered. That behavior--of revering some people and not others as “moral leaders” or “sages”--is one expression of moral hierarchy. Another is when religious groups assign titles to people such as “Father”, “Pastor”, “Rabbi”, or “Captain of the Sea Organization” (Scientology). Moral hierarchy is part of the human psyche, and no amount of bullshit or doublethink can transcend it. It can only alter where stuff is in a person’s moral hierarchy or obfuscate awareness of it for people. I think such obfuscation is harmful to the ethical development of humanity. A clear example of the dangers of the obfuscation of moral hierarchy through bullshit is communist revolutions.
“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." - Animal Farm
Huh? So you're saying the Rabbi's philosophy is not valid because it might make a former Klansman hate the Klan? And you're accusing HIM of doubespeak?
“A lot of these choices about making judgments which you discuss here are very much context sensitive. Of course we make quick judgments -- ones that don't necessarily take context into consideration -- when we are in situations that could cause bodily harm.”
The judgements I discussed all took context into consideration, regardless of how quick or not they were. Most of ethics is extremely context sensitive, which is why it is often the case that neat principles and generalities are wrong when applied to the messiness of life.
“In calmer situations we are called by ethics to read a situation -- or a person, or a group -- with more attention to nuance. “
Walking in a sketchy neighborhood at night is no different than walking during the day with regard to attention to nuance, but rather the data we have access to. In the midst of the chaos of war a person isn’t granted a lapse in a consideration of nuance when making life and death decisions. An emergency room doctor shouldn’t abandon a consideration of nuance.
And of course, as you acknowledge, some of the choices I describe are in “calmer” situations -- such as the Klansman who I meet: there is no clear and present danger. Even after learning the klansman plays that tennis, it could be in the context he isn’t even around: it wouldn’t alter my judgement.
“Also, in regards to judging people for allying with a group: there have been sages who walked among us -- Jesus comes to mind -- who hung out with some of the most despised members of society. “
Jesus wasn’t a “sage”; he was a lunatic. According to the fictionalized records we have, the gospels, he claimed a world changing tribulation was going to come in his generation and that a god was going to come to his aid and overthrow the Roman Empire on his behalf and place him as king of the Jews. And he declared that everyone who didn’t follow him or the god he believed in was going to be violently punished. Jesus despised those who opposed him. He thought they deserved violent punishment. He talked about “loving enemies” in one moment and throwing his enemies in a fire in another. Lunatic--not sage.
“The Black musician Daryl Davis has walked with Klan members and helped them see differently. He is an example of someone who disregards collective guilt in order to reach out to other souls. I would say he is a true healer.”
I know of Daryl Davis. I appreciate what he has done with Klansmen. But the notion that he hasn’t judged those Klan members in a negative way is erroneous. He wouldn’t be helping “them see differently” if he didn’t think they were seeing wrong in the first place. The fact that he even decides to spend time with Klansmen is precisely because he has a prejudice against Klansmen -- particularly that their membership in the Klan is wrong and he wants to get them to reject it. I’ve seen his interviews and speeches. He takes pride in deconverting Klansmen. He takes trophies of their robes. I imagine the term “warrior” may as much accurately describe Daryl Davis as “healer”.
I didn’t advocate a simplistic “collective guilt” for Klansmen. I expressed *nuance*. For example, I said that gang members who didn’t participate in the crimes of other gang members shouldn’t be prosecuted for those crimes. I simply said that we should judge them for being associated with those gangs. We should judge their association as wrong. Just as Daryl Davis judges the association of klansmen with the klan as wrong and thus tries to get them out of the Klan. It’s not like I said we should throw all the gang members into a fire like Jesus did “the goats.”
Just because I’d judge a klansman for being in the Klan doesn’t mean I wouldn’t have a dialogue with him. It doesn’t mean I wouldn’t eat dinner with him. But just like Daryl Davis, Id have an interest in seeing them *repent* their association with the Klan.
Likewise, Jesus may have hung out with people commonly despised by his society, but he also urged them--commanded them, even--to repent, and threatened them with supernatural punishment if they did not. Personally I find that itself to be despicable. I’d still talk to Jesus.
When I was in college, Christian preachers and pastors would occasionally come to my campus and preach heaven for those who obeyed the god they believed in and destruction or hell for those who disobeyed the god they believed in. I found that behavior contemptible. It was “sinful”--but it didn’t stop me from talking to them. I even sometimes *visited their churches*. I reached out to their souls, despite the fact that they ostensibly worshipped a god whose followers over the past few thousands years routinely oppressed, terrorized, and murdered people, such as myself, who simply didn’t believe, disputed, confuted, or disrespected the idea of their god because the book they idolize expresses disdain, hatred and wrath toward people who don’t believe, dispute, confute, or disrespect the idea of their god.
I’ve learned that Christians are much less likely to be willing to hang out with me and discuss philosophical topics than I am willing to hang out with them; despite their praise for Jesus for hanging out with people he thought did despicable things, it is more common than not that Christians will reject my company once they discover something they despise about me, which isn’t that long, as I’m open about my attitudes toward Christianity. Some do though, and I find that respectable.
I'm not a Christian, so I'm not in the business of promoting or defending Christianity or the Jesus of the Christian canon. I'm Jewish on my mother's side, and I've spent time studying the Jewish Jesus, in the way that I've also studied Lao-Tsu, Siddhartha Gautama, Moses, and Mohammed -- as people whose influence on the world has been huge, and whom I respect.
In my studies, I've found that much of what we've been led to know about Jesus and his sayings was written by early Christians (mostly Jews -- except for Luke) who often used strong language to promote Jesus as an alternative to Judaism --thus, the writings were politicized.
The gospels were written a couple of generations after the death of Jesus, by people who did not know him personally, so we have no written accounts by any of his contemporaries who knew him well. The politicized writings became part of the Christian canon, while writings with alternative views of Jesus were sidelined.
Thus, much of what was written about Jesus and what he said cannot be taken as literal truth. There are a few facts we can glean from what was written, including the writings of the historian Josephus. Jesus was promoting a way of resisting Empire without violence, using methods of internal transformation.
Part of the transformation process involved a renewal of how we perceive and treat other people, plus how we deal with our own harmful impulses. None of this was new. These teachings are rooted in those of the earlier Jewish prophets, and there is nothing "lunatic" about them. For me, Jesus -- who was very much a Jew -- was working within that prophetic tradition.
I choose that core teaching, rooted in the prophets, as my guide. We live in a neoliberal global economy that is creating huge divisions in our society. One of the ways to resist the division-generating nature of our system is to build bridges amongst ourselves. That involves seeing without prejudice, as well as owning our own missteps and treating others kindly.
And yes, as you say, making judgments is necessary in order to navigate the world around us. But centering the making of judgments wouldn't work for me. I have found that many judgments I made in the past were wrong.
Any judgment should be lightly held, like a baby bird. Going back to what the rabbi wrote in his post (and here I'll paraphrase), approaching people and situations with "beginner's mind" rather than pre-judgment yields better outcomes.
A final word: building bridges requires monitoring the language we use, and the tone in which we use it. I'm assuming you don't know (or care) whether or not I'm a Christian; thus using the word "lunatic" (twice!) to describe Jesus is disrespectful and potentially hurtful. It does not create a welcoming space for dialogue.
Thank you, Ruth, for your thoughtful response. You are right that any discussions need to be respectful of others if one is truly interested in improving human relations and understanding. I wish you well.
“ I'm Jewish on my mother's side, and I've spent time studying the Jewish Jesus, in the way that I've also studied Lao-Tsu, Siddhartha Gautama, Moses, and Mohammed -- as people whose influence on the world has been huge, and whom I respect.”
It seems you have a respect for popular people. Quite ordinary. Mao had huge influence on the world—respect him?
Moses committed genocide according to the Torah. If part of your respect rests on cherry picking what allows you to feel respectful toward certain people, that would be a manifestation of prejudice — a prejudice to see good even when there is evil. That is not a virtue: it is like having black mold growing on your children’s bedsheets but insisting it is just food coloring. It is important that people do not rationalize away the evil of powerful and popular people.
“ The gospels were written a couple of generations after the death of Jesus, by people who did not know him personally, so we have no written accounts by any of his contemporaries who knew him well. ”
All we have are the writings of Christians about Jesus and the writings about the contemporary history. Those writings include lots of stuff about supernatural punishment toward people that don’t follow Jehovah. And that would be in alignment with Jewish apocalypticism of the time. Being a Jew who thought he was a messiah that a god would help by destroying his enemies is in alignment with the historical period (we have records of other would be messiahs being executed by Rome) and the Jewish prophets. Do I need to quote the violence from them?
Suggesting that Jesus didn’t express any violence or threats of violence based on the writings we have available is irrational—but quite understandable from a perspective that wants to preserve popular figures as projections of a person’s own ideology.
“ But centering the making of judgments wouldn't work for me. I have found that many judgments I made in the past were wrong.”
I do not think “negative” judgements, such as thinking a person should repent are the only forms of judgement. “Positive” judgements, such as judgements of respect are also judgements. Making of “judgements” — that is the various emotional evaluations of people that range from love, to respect, to hate, to reverence, to fear is simply part of the human psyche; and core to it, and interact with each other. What we judge as worthy affects what we judge as unworthy. What we judge as dangerous affects what we judge as peaceful. Some of the judgements in my past that were among my worst mistakes were judgements in which I trusted or respected someone or something that I should not have.
“ approaching people and situations with "beginner's mind" rather than pre-judgment yields better outcomes.”
We cannot do this. We are not beginners in life. We all accumulate experience throughout the years and those make a mark on our minds, whether we like it or not. To think we can (or more delusional—do—)always have a “beginners mind” is futile, and often just spiritual conceit— as it is sometimes part of some sort of ethic that exults it. Even viewing the “beginners mind” with respect is itself a judgement that is based on experience.
“ A final word: building bridges requires monitoring the language we use, and the tone in which we use it.”
I don’t think you are worthy of policing my tone or language. It is quite disrespectful to suggest you are.
“ I'm assuming you don't know (or care) whether or not I'm a Christian; thus using the word "lunatic" (twice!) to describe Jesus is disrespectful and potentially hurtful.”
Jesus was a lunatic, lunatic, lunatic. There is three more instances for you.
It is quite disrespectful to admonish a person for using the word “lunatic” to describe a person who according to a reasonable reading of a text allegedly believed those who didn’t obey him were going to be thrown in a fire. The word lunatic is actually the word CS Lewis used, a Christian, in his book Mere Christianity to describe what Jesus would be if he is not in fact the son of a god. You turn Jesus into just a “sage” that reflects your own ideology—you degrade him; according to Lewis that would be disrespectful.
Do you think all people should be protected from “disrespectful” language or just the people you respect? For example — you think it is “disrespectful” for a person to call Hitler a lunatic? Jim Jones? Stalin? Charles Manson? Ted Bundy? are you concerned about hurting the feelings of Ted Bundy’s groupies, such that you would admonish the parents of one his victims for their language or tone for calling him a psychopath? There is dialogue; but it sounds like you only want to hear it if it comes with the words and tone that you approve.
Perhaps you should be more welcoming of the full range of human emotions and the full range of reality. Some people are in fact psychopathic lunatics. Believing a god commands you to commit genocide on a group of people to acquire land is a blaring sign. I’m talking about Moses. To respect psychopathic lunatics is disrespectful to their victims. Or do you have no problem with Charles Manson apologists? Do you keep a “beginners mind” with that? Perhaps if the former king of Tibet had not tried to keep a “beginners mind” and “build bridges”(and receive donations) he would not have endorsed the psychopath Shoko Asahara, who financially profited from that endorsement, and eventually led his followers to create biological weapons and carry out terrorist attacks.
The fact that calling Moses (or Jesus or anyone else) a lunatic might be “potentially hurtful” to his fans should be as relevant as the fact that calling Jim Jones a lunatic might be “potentially hurtful” to his fans. Not calling out lunatics out of concern for hurting the feelings of their often loony following has caused much more distress and pain to *innocent* people than the act of calling lunatics, lunatics.
If you were to present your view as a Machiavellian real-politik political strategy rather than sincere ethical philosophy I could maybe be persuaded that at times it’s better to be perceived as a friend(like Daryl Davis’ schtick) than it is to be open with one’s actual feelings and beliefs which are not at all friend-like, but that doesn’t appear to me what you are advocating.
Let me explain how I understand group judgmentalism - and groups of human beings in general.
Whenever we judge people by their group instead of individually we are wrong to do so. The reason is because people in groups are not all the same. Therefore, we are not judging based on truth. More typically, we are judging based on stereotypes of people in the group. Group judgmentalism is always wrong no matter how the group is put together.
We are going to put people in groups, but it is the judging part that is harmful. "All white people are racist" is a group judgment that is itself racist - and cannot possibly be truth. Group judgmentalism is never good for society or human relations.
We also cannot judge groups of people when they are members of the group of their own free will.
Let's take something like a group of Christians. Are they all good people or bad people based on their group? No one could possibly say with certainty one way or another. It is almost certain that there are good and bad people in every group therefore a group judgment that all Christians are bad is wrong - even though they chose to be Christians.
Group judgmentalism of individuals is wrong - period. Judge every individual by their unique individual character and not by any group characteristic.
Lastly, it is important to remember that group judgmentalism in this context only applies to individuals in the group, not the group entity itself. A group as an entity is also not defined completely by a minority of members of the group since every group of human beings will have bad people in it. Groups are defined by the primary purpose of the group.
If an individual chooses to be in a group, say a person becomes a member of a church -- then that is an individual act of that person. If a person is aware of that churches history -- say it has a history of bigotry toward black people, like the Mormon Church -- then a person is responsible for choosing to express fealty and reverence to a group that has a history of a particular behavior. Let’s say the church decides to do some horrible things, say like Jim Jones’ cult -- members of the group that don’t condemn that group, that continue show allegiance to that group, should be judged for their allegiance, even if they specifically were not responsible for those things. If a person is a member of a gang, and they hang out with the gang members and express respect to the gang members, and show deference to gang leaders, but they themselves do not commit any crimes, they should not be judged for those specific crimes, but they should be judged for allying themselves with that group. It is an expression of a person’s character, and potentially personality, what groups they fraternize with. We absolutely should be judged by the people we choose to be loyal to and respect. It would be wrong and foolish not to judge people by the groups they choose.
If I meet someone and they tell me they regularly go to Klan meetings and burn crosses, but that they love black people, I can guarantee you they are going to be judged by me in a *negative* way because of their membership in the Klan and if you tell me that is wrong, I’m going to judge you *negatively* for telling me it is wrong.
Group judgements are wrong when they are about superficial traits that don’t have any logical relationship to a person’s character or personality, such as race. And they are additionally only wrong if they are bigoted--in the sense they do not change even after we learn more data about the person that challenges any prejudices.
We all have prejudices about people based on generalized groups they belong to and the experiences and data we have been exposed to. And these prejudices are *sometimes* a necessary and efficient heuristic (although also sometimes widely inaccurate) for making decisions that can often be very helpful for our safety. For example-- I am more likely to walk across the street at night in a sketchy neighborhood when I see a male walking toward me than a woman. If I see it is 4 males, it even increases more than if it is 4 females. That’s because I have a prejudice towards males regarding their likelihood of violence in sketchy places at night. That is a good prejudice to have; it can keep me from being mugged or worse. If those males feel offended by me avoiding them, they are at best naive about dangers. If I were to run into those males in the daytime and they turned out all to be awesome people after spending hours with them, and then I see them at night again, I wouldn’t avoid them. My prejudice is not bigotry.
If you were to tell me that I was wrong for crossing the street to avoid the males but not females, I’d call you an idiot and say your judgement of my behavior and prejudice was wrong.
Bigotry toward people because of a group they belong to is when our judgements don’t change about individuals despite new information about them that *should* invalidate our judgements if we were reasonable. Learning that the Klanman plays tennis with black people every weekend and is super respectful will not change my fundamental suspicion and dislike of him-- that’s not bigotry because the information isn’t strong enough to outweigh the fact that he hangs out with Klansmen burning crosses, a group that has a history of killing and terrorizing black people. Spending a few hours learning that the men at night who I avoided were all local college students at Berkeley who loved cats, and who spent their nights competing in programming tournaments and their weekends watching anime and discussing ethics would change my opinion of them such that I don’t avoid them in sketchy neighborhoods if I identify them. But if I can’t, cuz it’s too dark, well, I’m going to fall back to my *accurate-ish* prejudice about males. That is *wise*. Encouraging people to be fools is wrong. Well, unless, for example, we are spies and in a righteous war and we are encouraging our enemies to be fools to defeat them.
“Group judgementalism” is sometimes good for society, human relations, and the individuals doing the judging.
A lot of these choices about making judgments which you discuss here are very much context sensitive. Of course we make quick judgments -- ones that don't necessarily take context into consideration -- when we are in situations that could cause bodily harm.
In calmer situations we are called by ethics to read a situation -- or a person, or a group -- with more attention to nuance.
Also, in regards to judging people for allying with a group: there have been sages who walked among us -- Jesus comes to mind -- who hung out with some of the most despised members of society. The Black musician Daryl Davis has walked with Klan members and helped them see differently. He is an example of someone who disregards collective guilt in order to reach out to other souls. I would say he is a true healer.
I agree that we need to be tolerant of the intolerant in order to have a dialogue with them as Daryl Davis discovered. Daryl was able to demonstrate to KKK members that he was as human as they are by his unique individuality and not by any group membership. This is why judging by individual identity is so important.
Healing human relationships, especially after the bloodiest human century in history - the 20th, is the highest calling a human being can have. Throughout history there have always been people who want to divide and hate other people who are not part of their group. The healers have been rare - but we need more of them.
It’s unfortunate that the voluntary groups that have been among the worst about “dividing and hating other people who are not part of their group” throughout history, such as most major religions, specifically for stupid reasons, continue to attract and retain followers and apologists.
Daryl, didn’t simply “heal human relationships”, he also destroyed them, particularly the relationships between some klansmen. And also part of the transformation the klansmen took was them *renouncing the group they were once part of*. The ex-klansmen ended up “hating” the klan.
Sometimes, “the highest calling” can be the severing of toxic, abusive, or tyrannical relationships--and trying to heal them would be evil.
“Hate” is a fundamental human class of emotion, and there is no way to eliminate it--and it is sometimes right to express it. You revealed it in your comment referring to a people “who want to divide and hate other people”, juxtaposing them and their behavior with what you revere as the “highest human calling”, which appears to also be, probably not coincidentally, what you believe you are engaged in yourself—quite the high(est) opinion of your activity you have.
The doublethink is strong with you. Tell us, how low do you think it is to want to “divide and hate other people?” What do you think is the “lowest calling”? And explain how a person’s calling can be “the highest” and simultaneously this statement of yours can hold: “ Neither human being is better than the other or has more value. There is no hierarchy. “.
The word “higher” automatically creates a hierarchy conceptually—there can be no “high” without a “low”.
And if you are ascribing ethical judgements of peoples’ behavior and orientation as being “high” you are going to be projecting a hierarchy of value. Humans who are conceived as fulfilling “higher callings” are going to be perceived as being more praiseworthy than humans who are conceived as fulfilling “lower callings”. The term “sage”, for example is a title of *high* honor. People consider sages “wise”, and they are praised for it; they are revered. Other people though aren’t given such a title and they aren’t revered. That behavior--of revering some people and not others as “moral leaders” or “sages”--is one expression of moral hierarchy. Another is when religious groups assign titles to people such as “Father”, “Pastor”, “Rabbi”, or “Captain of the Sea Organization” (Scientology). Moral hierarchy is part of the human psyche, and no amount of bullshit or doublethink can transcend it. It can only alter where stuff is in a person’s moral hierarchy or obfuscate awareness of it for people. I think such obfuscation is harmful to the ethical development of humanity. A clear example of the dangers of the obfuscation of moral hierarchy through bullshit is communist revolutions.
“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." - Animal Farm
Huh? So you're saying the Rabbi's philosophy is not valid because it might make a former Klansman hate the Klan? And you're accusing HIM of doubespeak?
“A lot of these choices about making judgments which you discuss here are very much context sensitive. Of course we make quick judgments -- ones that don't necessarily take context into consideration -- when we are in situations that could cause bodily harm.”
The judgements I discussed all took context into consideration, regardless of how quick or not they were. Most of ethics is extremely context sensitive, which is why it is often the case that neat principles and generalities are wrong when applied to the messiness of life.
“In calmer situations we are called by ethics to read a situation -- or a person, or a group -- with more attention to nuance. “
Walking in a sketchy neighborhood at night is no different than walking during the day with regard to attention to nuance, but rather the data we have access to. In the midst of the chaos of war a person isn’t granted a lapse in a consideration of nuance when making life and death decisions. An emergency room doctor shouldn’t abandon a consideration of nuance.
And of course, as you acknowledge, some of the choices I describe are in “calmer” situations -- such as the Klansman who I meet: there is no clear and present danger. Even after learning the klansman plays that tennis, it could be in the context he isn’t even around: it wouldn’t alter my judgement.
“Also, in regards to judging people for allying with a group: there have been sages who walked among us -- Jesus comes to mind -- who hung out with some of the most despised members of society. “
Jesus wasn’t a “sage”; he was a lunatic. According to the fictionalized records we have, the gospels, he claimed a world changing tribulation was going to come in his generation and that a god was going to come to his aid and overthrow the Roman Empire on his behalf and place him as king of the Jews. And he declared that everyone who didn’t follow him or the god he believed in was going to be violently punished. Jesus despised those who opposed him. He thought they deserved violent punishment. He talked about “loving enemies” in one moment and throwing his enemies in a fire in another. Lunatic--not sage.
“The Black musician Daryl Davis has walked with Klan members and helped them see differently. He is an example of someone who disregards collective guilt in order to reach out to other souls. I would say he is a true healer.”
I know of Daryl Davis. I appreciate what he has done with Klansmen. But the notion that he hasn’t judged those Klan members in a negative way is erroneous. He wouldn’t be helping “them see differently” if he didn’t think they were seeing wrong in the first place. The fact that he even decides to spend time with Klansmen is precisely because he has a prejudice against Klansmen -- particularly that their membership in the Klan is wrong and he wants to get them to reject it. I’ve seen his interviews and speeches. He takes pride in deconverting Klansmen. He takes trophies of their robes. I imagine the term “warrior” may as much accurately describe Daryl Davis as “healer”.
I didn’t advocate a simplistic “collective guilt” for Klansmen. I expressed *nuance*. For example, I said that gang members who didn’t participate in the crimes of other gang members shouldn’t be prosecuted for those crimes. I simply said that we should judge them for being associated with those gangs. We should judge their association as wrong. Just as Daryl Davis judges the association of klansmen with the klan as wrong and thus tries to get them out of the Klan. It’s not like I said we should throw all the gang members into a fire like Jesus did “the goats.”
Just because I’d judge a klansman for being in the Klan doesn’t mean I wouldn’t have a dialogue with him. It doesn’t mean I wouldn’t eat dinner with him. But just like Daryl Davis, Id have an interest in seeing them *repent* their association with the Klan.
Likewise, Jesus may have hung out with people commonly despised by his society, but he also urged them--commanded them, even--to repent, and threatened them with supernatural punishment if they did not. Personally I find that itself to be despicable. I’d still talk to Jesus.
When I was in college, Christian preachers and pastors would occasionally come to my campus and preach heaven for those who obeyed the god they believed in and destruction or hell for those who disobeyed the god they believed in. I found that behavior contemptible. It was “sinful”--but it didn’t stop me from talking to them. I even sometimes *visited their churches*. I reached out to their souls, despite the fact that they ostensibly worshipped a god whose followers over the past few thousands years routinely oppressed, terrorized, and murdered people, such as myself, who simply didn’t believe, disputed, confuted, or disrespected the idea of their god because the book they idolize expresses disdain, hatred and wrath toward people who don’t believe, dispute, confute, or disrespect the idea of their god.
I’ve learned that Christians are much less likely to be willing to hang out with me and discuss philosophical topics than I am willing to hang out with them; despite their praise for Jesus for hanging out with people he thought did despicable things, it is more common than not that Christians will reject my company once they discover something they despise about me, which isn’t that long, as I’m open about my attitudes toward Christianity. Some do though, and I find that respectable.
Want to hang out and talk about Jesus? I’m down.
I'm not a Christian, so I'm not in the business of promoting or defending Christianity or the Jesus of the Christian canon. I'm Jewish on my mother's side, and I've spent time studying the Jewish Jesus, in the way that I've also studied Lao-Tsu, Siddhartha Gautama, Moses, and Mohammed -- as people whose influence on the world has been huge, and whom I respect.
In my studies, I've found that much of what we've been led to know about Jesus and his sayings was written by early Christians (mostly Jews -- except for Luke) who often used strong language to promote Jesus as an alternative to Judaism --thus, the writings were politicized.
The gospels were written a couple of generations after the death of Jesus, by people who did not know him personally, so we have no written accounts by any of his contemporaries who knew him well. The politicized writings became part of the Christian canon, while writings with alternative views of Jesus were sidelined.
Thus, much of what was written about Jesus and what he said cannot be taken as literal truth. There are a few facts we can glean from what was written, including the writings of the historian Josephus. Jesus was promoting a way of resisting Empire without violence, using methods of internal transformation.
Part of the transformation process involved a renewal of how we perceive and treat other people, plus how we deal with our own harmful impulses. None of this was new. These teachings are rooted in those of the earlier Jewish prophets, and there is nothing "lunatic" about them. For me, Jesus -- who was very much a Jew -- was working within that prophetic tradition.
I choose that core teaching, rooted in the prophets, as my guide. We live in a neoliberal global economy that is creating huge divisions in our society. One of the ways to resist the division-generating nature of our system is to build bridges amongst ourselves. That involves seeing without prejudice, as well as owning our own missteps and treating others kindly.
And yes, as you say, making judgments is necessary in order to navigate the world around us. But centering the making of judgments wouldn't work for me. I have found that many judgments I made in the past were wrong.
Any judgment should be lightly held, like a baby bird. Going back to what the rabbi wrote in his post (and here I'll paraphrase), approaching people and situations with "beginner's mind" rather than pre-judgment yields better outcomes.
A final word: building bridges requires monitoring the language we use, and the tone in which we use it. I'm assuming you don't know (or care) whether or not I'm a Christian; thus using the word "lunatic" (twice!) to describe Jesus is disrespectful and potentially hurtful. It does not create a welcoming space for dialogue.
Thank you, Ruth, for your thoughtful response. You are right that any discussions need to be respectful of others if one is truly interested in improving human relations and understanding. I wish you well.
“ I'm Jewish on my mother's side, and I've spent time studying the Jewish Jesus, in the way that I've also studied Lao-Tsu, Siddhartha Gautama, Moses, and Mohammed -- as people whose influence on the world has been huge, and whom I respect.”
It seems you have a respect for popular people. Quite ordinary. Mao had huge influence on the world—respect him?
Moses committed genocide according to the Torah. If part of your respect rests on cherry picking what allows you to feel respectful toward certain people, that would be a manifestation of prejudice — a prejudice to see good even when there is evil. That is not a virtue: it is like having black mold growing on your children’s bedsheets but insisting it is just food coloring. It is important that people do not rationalize away the evil of powerful and popular people.
“ The gospels were written a couple of generations after the death of Jesus, by people who did not know him personally, so we have no written accounts by any of his contemporaries who knew him well. ”
All we have are the writings of Christians about Jesus and the writings about the contemporary history. Those writings include lots of stuff about supernatural punishment toward people that don’t follow Jehovah. And that would be in alignment with Jewish apocalypticism of the time. Being a Jew who thought he was a messiah that a god would help by destroying his enemies is in alignment with the historical period (we have records of other would be messiahs being executed by Rome) and the Jewish prophets. Do I need to quote the violence from them?
Suggesting that Jesus didn’t express any violence or threats of violence based on the writings we have available is irrational—but quite understandable from a perspective that wants to preserve popular figures as projections of a person’s own ideology.
“ But centering the making of judgments wouldn't work for me. I have found that many judgments I made in the past were wrong.”
I do not think “negative” judgements, such as thinking a person should repent are the only forms of judgement. “Positive” judgements, such as judgements of respect are also judgements. Making of “judgements” — that is the various emotional evaluations of people that range from love, to respect, to hate, to reverence, to fear is simply part of the human psyche; and core to it, and interact with each other. What we judge as worthy affects what we judge as unworthy. What we judge as dangerous affects what we judge as peaceful. Some of the judgements in my past that were among my worst mistakes were judgements in which I trusted or respected someone or something that I should not have.
“ approaching people and situations with "beginner's mind" rather than pre-judgment yields better outcomes.”
We cannot do this. We are not beginners in life. We all accumulate experience throughout the years and those make a mark on our minds, whether we like it or not. To think we can (or more delusional—do—)always have a “beginners mind” is futile, and often just spiritual conceit— as it is sometimes part of some sort of ethic that exults it. Even viewing the “beginners mind” with respect is itself a judgement that is based on experience.
“ A final word: building bridges requires monitoring the language we use, and the tone in which we use it.”
I don’t think you are worthy of policing my tone or language. It is quite disrespectful to suggest you are.
“ I'm assuming you don't know (or care) whether or not I'm a Christian; thus using the word "lunatic" (twice!) to describe Jesus is disrespectful and potentially hurtful.”
Jesus was a lunatic, lunatic, lunatic. There is three more instances for you.
It is quite disrespectful to admonish a person for using the word “lunatic” to describe a person who according to a reasonable reading of a text allegedly believed those who didn’t obey him were going to be thrown in a fire. The word lunatic is actually the word CS Lewis used, a Christian, in his book Mere Christianity to describe what Jesus would be if he is not in fact the son of a god. You turn Jesus into just a “sage” that reflects your own ideology—you degrade him; according to Lewis that would be disrespectful.
Do you think all people should be protected from “disrespectful” language or just the people you respect? For example — you think it is “disrespectful” for a person to call Hitler a lunatic? Jim Jones? Stalin? Charles Manson? Ted Bundy? are you concerned about hurting the feelings of Ted Bundy’s groupies, such that you would admonish the parents of one his victims for their language or tone for calling him a psychopath? There is dialogue; but it sounds like you only want to hear it if it comes with the words and tone that you approve.
Perhaps you should be more welcoming of the full range of human emotions and the full range of reality. Some people are in fact psychopathic lunatics. Believing a god commands you to commit genocide on a group of people to acquire land is a blaring sign. I’m talking about Moses. To respect psychopathic lunatics is disrespectful to their victims. Or do you have no problem with Charles Manson apologists? Do you keep a “beginners mind” with that? Perhaps if the former king of Tibet had not tried to keep a “beginners mind” and “build bridges”(and receive donations) he would not have endorsed the psychopath Shoko Asahara, who financially profited from that endorsement, and eventually led his followers to create biological weapons and carry out terrorist attacks.
The fact that calling Moses (or Jesus or anyone else) a lunatic might be “potentially hurtful” to his fans should be as relevant as the fact that calling Jim Jones a lunatic might be “potentially hurtful” to his fans. Not calling out lunatics out of concern for hurting the feelings of their often loony following has caused much more distress and pain to *innocent* people than the act of calling lunatics, lunatics.
If you were to present your view as a Machiavellian real-politik political strategy rather than sincere ethical philosophy I could maybe be persuaded that at times it’s better to be perceived as a friend(like Daryl Davis’ schtick) than it is to be open with one’s actual feelings and beliefs which are not at all friend-like, but that doesn’t appear to me what you are advocating.
Shalom.
“Shalom”
Translation: Burning bridge, disengaging.