• SavvyWolf@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    21 hours ago

    Indeed, it’s something I think about quite a bit. The conclusion I’ve come to involves consent: If all people involved in something fully understand and consent to what is happening, then they should not be “judged” for it.

    And yes, I know there are holes and loopholes in that conclusion, but I think it’s nearly impossible to have a logically sound and consistent moral framework.

    • TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 hours ago

      Thanks for the response!

      If all people involved in something fully understand and consent to what is happening, then they should not be “judged” for it.

      Here’s the thing: this statement still hasn’t entered into non-judgment itself. When you use the word “should” you’re already holding one thing higher than the other. And again, this is natural for us to want to do! But who is consenting to this moral framework in the first place?

      That’s more than a loophole or caveat – it’s a limitation of all judgment. Judgments don’t exist in the world; they are passed by judging creatures. So the only way to find a world without judgment is to, at the very least, practice separating yourself from your own judgments. Seeing the world for what it is, we can pause in our concern for what ought to be.