Thought Judgements?

Is it ok to judge someone's known thoughts even if they don't act on those thoughts? If so, to what extent? If not, why not?

Not only is it OK we should definitely judge their known thoughts. Now we shouldnt extend the judgement beyond the thoughts into areas where subsequent unknown thougths may alter the perception of the first.
In other words judge the thoughts not necessarily the people because they can change their minds.

To what extent do you judge their known thoughts (but not acted upon)?

I mean if someone openly states that they believe it is their right to steal, but they don't/haven't actually done so - to what extent do you judge them? How do you judge them any differently to someone who has actually acted upon similar thoughts?

o.O Actions. Never thoughts.

I'm one of those people who consider a great many things. Good, bad, terrifying. Of course it happens within moments, and the chances of me doing anything contrary to my belief system is slim to none, but I still have the thoughts if only due to imagination.

What justification exists for judging thoughts or intent of a person absent ANY action?

Justification might be that I don't like the way they think.

If someone expresses their belief that a particular form of stealing is ok, even though they haven't done it themselves, I may judge them less then desirably.

If someone publicly states that they approve of someone else's actions - "the girl deserved to be raped by John because she's such a slut" - now they haven't done it themselves, but they're publically stateing their approval. I might judge that person pretty harshly. I might judge the actual perpertrator worse.

The intent of someone doing an action should come into play. If John Doe attempts to kill Jane but fails, then he'll be judged quite poorly.

Oh, THAT. Yeah, whatever. That's fine. The appropriate action for which is nearly always social castration to some extent or another.

Anything else?

So you do think that judging peoples thoughts are ok?

A great many thoughts run through my brain and any given moment. No, you don't get to judge my inner thoughts. Who are you? You have zero Idea what I've been through. Or why that thought may be suddenly in my little brain. (Note when i say 'you' I'm using the general you.) Plus I don't see how you could know and judge my most inner thoughts.

talonnolan wrote: Plus I don't see how you could know and judge my most inner thoughts.

It's why I said "known" thoughts. The thoughts that are expressed much like in some of my examples. Naturally the thoughts you have that are not known can't be judged.

talonnolan wrote:A great many thoughts run through my brain and any given moment. No, you don't get to judge my inner thoughts. Who are you? You have zero Idea what I've been through. Or why that thought may be suddenly in my little brain. (Note when i say 'you' I'm using the general you.)

Again - known thoughts only.

I'm also asking to what extent.

Do we not judge people all the time?

I'm often told by my friends that i'm a very non-judgemental guy and I correct them every single time and say I'm very judgemental. I judge everybody. I just may have a different standard of judgement then some people.

If you infringe on someone's rights, you're judged poorly. But if you want to smoke a cigarette outside someplace what do I care. If my work collegue is having a bad day and I get a short response from them, I'll give them some room but won't automatically think what an a'hole.

alvspr wrote:So you do think that judging peoples thoughts are ok?

Of course. I just presumed, and I shouldn't have, that we were talking about treating thoughts as actions. I was wrong. I'm sorry. I know I've let my cheerleaders down.  

Personal judgement, like whether or not I think you're a good person? In this case I think thoughts are a good basis for judgement.

When it comes to the law, there's a blurry line for me. In most cases your thoughts are your own, and shouldn't be cause for persecution. However, when someone expresses thoughts of blowing up the government, buys lots of weapons, and reads lots of manuals, I think something should be done in the case.

Judgement of "known" thoughts in terms of drawing conclusions for your own benefit and understanding is essential we do it all the time and in many ways I doubt we could not do it.

However Judgement in the legal sense is another matter. I think that legally we can "judge" known thoughts as well but only to the extent that we can restrict the ability for those known thoughts to become actions that would in turn violate others rights. In this it is hard to come up with an objective standard, because most people are able to temper irrational thoughts (known or unknown) and prevent putting them to action. Since each individual can violate this norm at any time its up to those we task with protecting the public to judge the probability of those thoughts becoming reality.

We have a system of judgement for this:
We codify a set of rules for enforcing and executing judgement in law through a representative legislative body (usually democratically elected). We empower executive officers (usually also elected) with the task of enforcement who established and hires law enforcement agencies .They are empowered to judge but we also ask others (the judicial process) to examine the appropriateness of all this. So in order for a "free" society to flourish; it recognizes that judgement is not only necessary for examining the probability of inappropriate thought becoming inappropriate actions, but that the judgement used can often itself be errant. Therefore a system is put in place that balances this societal need against individual liberty. In a democratic society it is the public's value of their personal freedom's that will set the boundaries, for good or for ill.

I judge actions. I judge thoughts that lead to value system and thus, actions. I don't necessarily judge thoughts per se. It depends on the impact those thoughts have, I guess. I certainly don't judge negative inner thoughts, unless they are acted on.

So, my answer is, I judge a person's thoughts, relatively.

There's an epistemological flaw in the concept of judging thoughts: we don't know the thoughts of others. We only know what they tell us they're thinking--in other words, we only ever can known a filtered version of their thoughts. Then we filter it again with our own interpretations (the first three years of my marriage consisted of my wife and me learning each other's filters, and developing new ones). So it is at least incredibly difficult to accurately know, much less judge, someone's thoughts.

You certainly can judge what you know of their thoughst, but unless you can read their minds you have to leave room for doubt.

I'm not going to get into the legal interpretation; I don't believe that was the intent of the OP, and legal issues aren't philosophical issues and are, in my opinion, invalid interpretations of philosophical questions outside of the very narrow (but still vital) field of legal philosophy.

Interesting thought (), can you judge someone based on their known thoughts not in the same way you judge their actions, but on a different scale?

I'm pretty sure I'm going to judge someone for thinking a woman deserves to be raped, for instance. But I won't judge them the same as someone who actually rapes women.