—Hello, is this the League of Superheroes?
— So, what’s your superpower?
“I don’t tell someone that they’re living incorrectly if their values don’t align with mine.”
— Your power is too great.
When some people judge others, it becomes unclear upon reflection why they are doing so. They condemn something because it bothers them, they themselves cannot imagine engaging in the activity for which they are judging another person, or they judge others quite rationally because that person’s actions cause them specific harm. Perhaps we judge others not because they have done something wrong (by the way, what does “wrong” even mean?), but because we enjoy judging, just as we enjoy shouting at a stadium, singing the anthem while standing, or courting/being courted by a future partner?
We can never claim that the law, justice institutions, definitions crimes and punishments arose as a rational measure to maintain stability and order, rather than as a rationalization of our internal desire to condemn what we are intolerant of, based on our own internal motives and incentives. Due to our cognitive limitations, we are unable to distinguish between what is rational and what is merely rationalized.
The fact that the desire to judge is primary in relation to the need for a court is supported by the observation that the greatest outrage and condemnation in society are not directed at robberies and murders, but rather at the behavior of individuals who do not conform to the values of those who are judging, even if they do not cause any direct harm. For people, mass murders become a source of pride and almost the main content of history textbooks for children, while homosexual or extramarital heterosexual love, pedophilia, and interracial marriages are subjects of condemnation and criminal prosecution, if not now, then certainly in the recent past. People have long told tales of clever thieves and con artists; they enjoy heist movies and admire legendary robbers and tricksters, yet they are completely intolerant of religious pluralism or deviations from prescribed dress codes. What did it cost women to wear pants at the beginning of the last century? What does it cost now to attempt to break a “dress code,” whether it be a hijab in Iran or a suit and tie for office workers? And if we look at the judicial practices in a number of countries today, they are more likely to condemn someone for dancing in a church than for large-scale theft. They will stage a show trial for “unauthorized protests,” but will take pride, for example, in having “seized” a piece of someone else’s land.
It turns out that the main motive for condemnation is simply that the goals and values of the person being condemned do not align with our own, whether real or assumed. The assumed part comes from our willingness to condemn what we believe does not fit into “social standards” in order to maintain our position in society, our reputation, and our social connections, even though we personally allow ourselves the same behavior, provided we can remain anonymous. If homosexuality is condemned, the most fervent judges will often be homosexuals themselves, whether latent or open. They will be fervent because their outrage is more likely to be a performance than a genuine feeling of disgust. If anti-Semitism is in vogue in society, expect to hear condemnation of Jews from Jews or half-Jews. If we personally dislike the authorities but believe society accepts them, paradoxically, we will be ready to sing the anthem louder than anyone else and profess our love for the homeland. Teenagers bully masturbators, women condemn prostitutes, and those who are particularly fond of children may be the ones to denounce pedophiles, while the main thief—the authorities—pursues smaller thieves.
Each of us carries within ourselves dozens of reasons to judge others, and at every opportunity, we are ready to condemn others for things we ourselves are “guilty” of. The lack of a “superpower” of non-judgment among people will sooner or later lead to a very serious social crisis, especially as information technology allows us to know more and more about others. A recent example of the harassment of porn actresses, found on social media through an app that searches for faces in photos, showed that those who bullied them were precisely the ones who had no qualms about using those films for their intended purpose. The moralizing bullies were even unfazed by the unasked question directed at them: “Where did you get those pictures?”
In any case, there is a discrepancy between the motivation of the condemned and the motivation that is accepted or supposedly accepted in society. We judge a thief or a murderer not to somehow rectify the situation. Ultimately, it cannot be fixed. The murdered person is dead, and the robbed person is without money. We do not judge him in order for him to stop doing such bad things in the future; rather, we do it because we personally find such behavior unacceptable, unpleasant, repulsive, and outrageous. We don’t even need to correct or prevent such behavior in the future; we need to condemn it.
Interestingly, by condemning someone, we declare, through the very act of judgment, a distinction between the motivations of the condemned and our own. In doing so, we assert their abnormality in relation to us. We say, “You are not normal,” while simultaneously trying to impose our own norms, customs, and motivations onto someone who is, by definition, abnormal. If a person commits an act that they find acceptable for whatever reason, but we deem it unacceptable, we have no way to convey our sense of justice to them. We are unable to judge someone who is driven by motivations different from ours. Thus, any judgment is inherently unjust from the outset. Until we can make the condemned person understand, on an emotional level, the complete wrongness, repulsiveness, and unacceptability of their actions, they will not grasp the reasons for their judgment. All the facts and arguments regarding their guilt, which should be understood rationally, will be distorted in an effort to rationalize their behavior.
Try explaining to any average law-abiding citizen that consuming alcohol to alter one’s state of consciousness is a disgusting and shameful activity. Yet, at the same time, a crowd of these very average citizens will enthusiastically harass a quiet, harmless drug user, even though, in essence, both are doing the same thing.
The irrationality of criminals’ motivations is evident from the fact that no thief, rapist, or murderer considers the contents of the criminal code; they always perceive their own capture as the greatest injustice. Ask anyone in prison why they are there, and, with rare exceptions, you will get the answer, “for nothing.” Ask the authorities or the population of an aggressor country, and they will tell you about “necessary defense,” “historical destiny,” or “restoring justice.”
We enjoy judging so much that we’ve created, instead of a crime prevention procedure, a game of “cat and mouse” — a process of catching criminals only to release them later, motivating them to commit more crimes. The very act of “judgment” has turned into a flashy show with judges, lawyers, and juries. We’ve even started broadcasting it on television to cater to an audience hungry for spectacle. We like having people to judge, which is why we build prisons instead of centers for psychological rehabilitation or reintegration for offenders.
What is prison? How important is the prison sentence handed down to a defendant? If a person is deterred from committing a crime by the fear of prison, shame, social condemnation, or loss of reputation, once they find themselves in the defendant’s chair, that fear diminishes because they have nothing left to lose. The sentence imposed by the judge becomes less significant than the fact of their conviction itself. A person rejected by society seeks out another community where, strangely enough, they respect the laws or “codes” of that group, where they are not an outcast, and where they are understood and encouraged. They are no longer a pariah; they are simply on the other side of the barricades. However, if a person is capable of respecting laws, it is not necessary to push them to the other side of the line. They can be taught to do so on this side of the line. What is more beneficial for society: to keep criminals in prisons, breeding and then capturing recidivists and gangsters, or to teach a caught thief not to steal, to eliminate the need for crime in their life, to not reject them, to not cast them out, to give them a chance to make mistakes, and perhaps more than one?
What if a person is unable to stop stealing, for example, if they are a kleptomaniac? Or if someone enjoys killing, like a maniac? Or if a person is sexually aroused by children aged 6-8, making them a pedophile, and prison won’t change that at all. Should we kill them or deport them to a cold place? Yet we judge them, not even for what they have done, but for the images found on their computer. We definitely cannot punish this person because, in fact, we are punishing someone who is already damaged. It would be wonderful if this could be treated. But… it cannot be treated yet. Is it humane to make a disabled person suffer? Or do we just really want to condemn them? Of course, people who cannot be members of society—sociopaths, maniacs, psychopaths—should be isolated from society in some way. But we shouldn’t turn that isolation into suffering. Moreover, there is no point in judging them. Yet, in most cases, we do not act in ways that make sense; we act in ways that please us. Are we capable of being judges of those who are driven not by reason, but by the same impulses of passion?