The only for some people. If most people made

The cognitive role of emotions in moral judgment

All people
judge. Undeniably everyone judges
considering that there is no such a person who approves of every human
behavior. it can be said with confidence that we are
predominantly judgmental creatures given that we all have our own likes and
dislikes regarding human nature. In this sense, intellect, experiences and
emotions are the developmentally necessary components for acquiring the
capacity to create moral codes. There is a wide consensus that human beings
view acts as signals of essential moral identity and the moral status of an action is determined by the goodness or badness
of it’s consequences. The human behaviors, attitudes, actions and  the impact of their
actions  or even some type of people that we despise exist in our thinking
and our reaction or response when noticing them is often expressed by our
judging to some degree or another. When asking what are our likes and dislikes
most of us name human traits or behaviors that are disapproved by our moral
codes. It is notable that individuals are fundamentally adapted to ascribe
morally good or bad traits to others even when with limited information. This
raises the following question: Why does the word judgmental exist when
judgmental character can apply to everyone? Even when we don’t verbally express
our judgment we have already formed the belief that the act is morally wrong by
simply having a negative emotion directed towards even without manifesting it.
In short we still have a negative emotion for them without manifesting it. Therefore
saying that someone is judgmental simply because they talk or think of some
human acts and people negatively actually doesn’t make sense. Furthermore, one should not forget that
defining someone as judgmental is slightly subjective because a negative moral
appraisal is built on a negative emotion for most people and also by moral
reasoning, unfortunately, only for some people. If most people made moral
judgments driven by reason or observation there would be less irrational moral
blame and more rational moral appraisal. It is necessary to demonstrate a
disconnection between judgments of the immorality of acts driven by the
combination of intellect and emotions and judgments driven by solely emotions.
In short, we should draw a distinction between the conative and affective
aspects of judgmentalism. Emotions and sentiments influence moral appraisals
because moral values are often shaped by emotional dispositions. Rational
morality is achieved through reaching consistent moral judgment determined by the level of
violation and dimension of harm the act causes. Therefore, thinking of some
human act that violates or harms others as immoral is due to empathy. The
concepts of empathy are expressed by using moral vocabulary which is
essentially associated with sentiments. Even though people separate sentiments
from rationality it is certain sentiments that make morality rational and
certain sentiments that make morality irrational. The rationality actually makes judgment intelligible because rationality is the source of
truth. This suggests that understanding moral judgment differing under
accuracy and inaccuracy, rationality and irrationality is very important when
examining the conditions of underlying moral judgments. We need to develop a
better understanding of the moral judgment processes employed in moral
situations by adopting the perspective of rationality. Accordingly, we should consider the importance of the rational side of the judgment that requires
investigation of the emotional conditions under which it is made. I
agree with those people who say ‘you shouldn’t make quick judgments about
people’ but I also suggest that you shouldn’t make judgments about judgments
and judgers’ characters without taking different emotional conditions into
account. I will soon make another video for explaining the good sides of
understanding of how people arrive at their moral judgments.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Person-Centered Approach to judgmentalism                        

Why do people judge those who judge. This is a sarcastic
question which mocks the hypocritical side 
of people who judge those who judge. If judging some human acts makes
one judgmental then what makes someone who denounces others for judgmentalism?  Isn’t judging the judger judging  too? Therefore, the accusation of judging is nonsensical because
those who accuse others of judging are absolutely judgmental themselves.      What sorts of traits specifically add a conative dimension to judgmentalism? It
appears as if  having a lucid definition for judgmental is
nearly impossible as conceptions of the judgmental character are complicated
and compound. Judgmentalism is not to be understood as “disliking some human
acts or some human beings”. By definitions, ?udgmentalism  is an inappropriate
act of superiority over another for their moral failures. Indeed when  you accuse others for being judgmental you do
critisize them for making a moral failure. Therefore judging others for judging
makes you perfectly fit in the definition of judgmental. There is a great deal
of evidence that people view envy and pessimism as core components of
judgmental character. While this type of argument seeks judgment itself , there
is lucid evidence of it being true. However, a person who expresses disapproval
of a human act in general is called judgmental by sensitive individuals only
because they are offended by his opinion and not because he is  related to the definition of judgmental.
Overly sensitivity to criticism leads people to ignore what real judgmentalism
is and they come to blindly believe that whoever says anything negative about
them or about human behavior concerning them is judgmental. When in fact this
kinds of conclusions go against the real cognition of judgmentalism.  Simply put, sensitive and insecure people
tend to call judgmental to those people who happen to dislike human acts that
are related to those insecure and sensitive people. Therefore, if those
sensitive and insecure people hear judgments 
about human acts that are not related to their own character then they
are not going to think of those people as judgmental. In other words such
people tend to react to criticism with feelings of rage, or anger mostly when
they think it relates to them. Even though those judgmental views  may be directed to an indefinite group of
people they are nonetheless seen as snide remarks. Most likely, that is
explained by the fact that sensitive-insecure people  have low self esteem and they think most
critical opinions and remarks are directed to them. As they are oblivious to
the thought that they are inferior to others they think others think the same
about them too. In short, poor
self image sometimes triggers negative emotional reactions, and have a
significant impact on perception of others. People who denounce others for judgmentalism and love
to condemn them for it, seem to be unware what is meant by hypocrisy. They most
likely forget that the concept of hypocrisy implies  the practice of engaging in the same
behavior or activity for which one criticizes another. The accusers of
judging not only fail to realize that they are as judgmental but also have an
unclear and distorted notion of what hypocrisy is. It would be
better to consider the essence of the judgment from a rational perspective, emotional
rather than taking into consideration the approach that explain moral judgment
from the perspective of irrationally emotional self-interests and benefits that
give false assumptions of the character traits of the judger. The judger is not
malicious solely because they disapprove of the act or activity that you enjoy
or dislike behaviors and traits that you possess. Our attitude towards the judgment shouldn’t rely on the dimension
of how much negative it is but how much accurate it is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Judgmental-shaming as a weapon for self defense

Their talk is replete with references to their hatred
for judgmentalism or criticism, and they clearly need to let others know about
it. They are insensitive to the rights for speech of others, even to the point
that they try to shame them for having opinions and they feel slighted because
they are convinced that critical remarks are directed to them. Then, in fact,
they are the ones who intentionally or automatically involve themselves in the
judgment. At the  core of their inner
world is a deep sense of poor self image related to their secret wish to gain
confidence by being spiteful to critical opinions. That is how they struggle
maintaining self esteem. They refuse to believe that any critical opinion about
them  is accurate or reasonable and that
those who criticize them are neither malicious nor jealous of them. Intentional
or spontaneous blindness is their hope 
of gaining confidence and the only way of dealing with criticism They
are deluded by their self pressing need to believe in the non-existent
wickedness of people who judge them. 
They can’t  tolerate criticism about
the act or activity that they enjoy and behaviors or traits that they  possess. Criticizing is not intolerance
unless the person forces their beliefs. However attacking to criticism is
intolerance. Intolerance to criticism is linked to sensitivity because
intolerance is more of an emotional notion than rational one. Sensitive and
insecure people take criticism with certain negative sentiments. That is to
say, without basic negative emotions, they cannot acquire depression and they
cannot cover up their hurt feelings. These emotional deficits seem to be the
root cause in their patterns of bigoted behavior. It is quite evident that when
hearing criticism, they typically have a negative emotional reaction or a
negative emotional response. By and large, negative emotions of sensitive
people are sufficient enough for them to suppose that the judger’s view  is wrong even when they have no rational
reason to think that. The point I am trying to make is that their reactions to
criticism are correlated with their sentiments causing certain negative
reaction in them.  This suggests that
their views on criticism do not possess a purely cognitive source.

Willful ignorance of acknowledgement of judgmentalism
suggests that a person will call judgmental to people when his or self
interests are harmed. Notably, I propose that the core reason why individuals
condemn others’ underlying moral codes is subordinate to their beneficial
interests  that are particularly
subordinate to their own traits  instead
of the judgment based on the rightness or wrongness of the act that is judged.
My generic claim of the person-centered approach regarding judgmentalism  is that 
judgmental comments are chiefly taken as personal by those who are  extremely sensitive to criticism. 
Such people will either sulk or react with a smug remark or rude comment
as they believe that the information that judgment consists of relates
to them. In what follows, individuals defend a specific set of acts that are
judged regarding the level of how much those judgments concern them.  Namely, those who claim to despise  judgments are motivated to assess the
character of the judgers instead of the accuracy or inaccuracy of their
judgmental opinion. These type of people argue that critical observation are
perceived as more informative of an individual’s personality wise than that of
the person who is judged. That is to say, even when negative remarks are contingent on rational thinking sensitive people who
have found their own traits or lifestyles in those judgments express strong moral condemnation
towards the judger. Consistent with this idea, they criticize judgments determined by how much they are related to that the critical remark
regardless of it’s actual accuracy. They can’t tolerate
criticism about the act or activity that they enjoy and behaviors or traits
that they  possess. If anything, the
greater amount of cognition  in moral
judgment, the more likely they will be to
develop the legitimacy of a harsh response and  the more likely they will be to respond in
that way. Simply put, If the judgment bears no truth it won’t have a strong
emotional impact on them for they will treat it as nonsense and feel absolute
indifference. They desire to think that negative opinion doesn’t relate to
them. This gives them the thought of being too good to have flaws that are
worthy of being pointed out.  In brief,
if moral judgment has cognition in it then it will most likely hurt them. This
is why they rather hear false judgment about them than an accurate one.