Should We Really Judge Others?

You Shouldn't Judge Others.

Only God Can Judge Me.

Who Are You To Judge?

You've probably heard one of these phrases a few times in your life. Usually, when you make a moral judgment call that someone didn't like.

In the instance where two individuals are locked in this brief interaction, they are acting as sovereigns under their own laws and own truth. It looks something like this:

Person A: According to my moral standard, I state that these actions, behaviors, words, etc. that you've done are improper.

Person B: According to my moral standard, I refute the judgment you've made according to your moral standard and uphold my own as the truth.

In a world where there was no God, no universal truth, and no universal moral standard, this would be fine and dandy.

Morality would be subjective, and we would have a world where "Everyone did what was right in their own eyes. "When you look at biblical scripture, a world like that was chaotic.

While some politicians, activists, and celebrities may champion ethics that promote this, ordinary people may have to suffer the consequences of that thinking, which can lead to crime, disorder, debauchery, and a host of other undesirable outcomes, despite the "Do as thou wilt" law.

After all, we shouldn't want to hurt anyone, right? And the people wanting to impose a moral standard necessary for a functioning society only want to hurt others. This reasoning is the mindset, according to some.

I recently came across two articles on The Blaze. One was about the Department of Homeland Security recently calling out a media outlet for their seemingly sympathetic defense of illegal immigrants convicted of child sex abuse.

In so many words, this media outlet stated that these individuals were from another country, probably had little to no education, were from a culture that encouraged child marriages, and weren't aware of American laws on the matter.

It's fair to say that most people would agree that any kind of sexual contact with a minor is wrong. However, it's not bad to state that in some cultures around the world, child marriages are normal and common.

However, these individuals are in a new country with new laws, and they are subject to them by their residence in this country. If I were to go to another country and commit a crime, whether I was aware it was a crime or not, I'd expect to be arrested. Whether I was a citizen or not.

The other article was an opinion piece. It was about the recent controversy of Chip and Joanna Gaines, featuring a gay couple on their TV show. An incident that sparked backlash from the conservative Christian community

Now, this wouldn't be an issue if the Gaineses weren't Christian and did not speak about their faith. But they have and they are. Now they are subject to the laws of the God of the bible, who sets a universal moral standard.

That standard includes calling homosexuality an abomination and unnatural.

Now they are both calling Christians who spoke out to "Not judge them".

So what would they prefer then? For God to judge them? The God they serve? The God who has a universal moral standard that He calls all to be subject to, whether they know and follow Him or not?

What are we saying here? If each individual has their truth, then what happens to the truth? It just magically flies away?

The problem with adopting a purely subjective approach to morality is that it leaves us with nothing concrete to stand on. If Person A's moral truth can be different from Person B's, how do we reconcile the conflicts that naturally arise between them?

It boils down to Person A and Person B endorsing a truth that is not subject to a universal moral standard, but rather one based on their desires and viewpoints.

That can naturally change over time. It goes back to then seeing one of those persons as morally sovereign, and that goes back to the pagan law "Do as thou wilt". But don't go with The Truth.

This is moral relativism in a nutshell. It makes us morally sovereign over ourselves, but when that sovereignty conflicts with others, there's chaos. When we abandon universal truths, we end up in a world where "anything goes," with no real "right or wrong".

The fact that something like this can happen in our world speaks to the existence of a universal moral standard.

I believe in the existence of a universal moral standard, whether grounded in faith or shared ethical principles. It offers the most stability in an increasingly chaotic world.

And because there's a universal moral standard. We, as individuals, can judge, as long as it's done rightly.

We have the freedom to choose, but true freedom is about embracing constraints. True freedom is found in submitting to a moral truth that holds firm, providing us with direction amid moral confusion.

And that's another way we can live free!

Thanks for reading The Freeman Wire! Enjoyed this article? Feel free to share it!

I’ve got some news! I’ll be having a chat with Christopher Lind of Future-Focused about AI and the impact on creativity, learning and relationships. I’ll have the full video in next week’s article!