Do we all have sound judgments, both you and your opponent alike? If so, how is it that you disagree? But is it that you have sound judgment rather than he? Why? Because you think that is the case. But he thinks that too, and so do madmen. That is a bad criterion. Show me that you have subjected your own judgments to some examination and have paid attention to them.
Epictetus, Discourses, 3.9, 5-6
Audio narration
No one wants to fall prey to errors in judgment, and yet we often do; we find ourselves making snap decisions, erroneous assumptions, and sometimes coming to the wrong conclusions about things, and then failing to consider the possibility that we might be wrong. The human mind is not necessarily constructed to be objective about its own judgments. Given the large number of cognitive biases known in psychology, and given the tendency of most people to double down on their existing opinions in order shore up their egos, rather than launch into self-examination and discover something they might be wrong about, clear thinking on any issue is often the exception rather than the rule.
Errors in thinking is a huge topic, and I have neither the ability nor the intention to cover it exhaustively here. My aim in this article is much more modest: I’d like to examine two interconnected ways that people are sometimes incorrect in their thinking, and how Stoicism can help us avoid the pitfalls of both these extremes.
Social Thinking
Because humans are a hypersocial species, much of our thinking (as well as our errors in thinking) occurs within the social sphere. In fact, some cognitive scientists believe that our reasoning abilities evolved primarily to get along with others. In The Enigma of Reason, which I covered in a previous post, cognitive psychologists Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber suggest that reason “is mainly used in our interactions with others”:
We produce reasons in order to justify our thoughts and actions to others and produce arguments to convince others to think and act as we suggest. We also use reason to evaluate not so much our own thought as the reasons others use to justify themselves or to convince us. (p. 7)
We don’t usually turn our reasoning ability inward to our own arguments, thoughts and feelings. That’s why we are typically so much better at evaluating other people’s claims and behavior than our own. Our brains are probably designed to use reason as a social tool rather than as an introspective tool.
This is where philosophy becomes incredibly valuable. It enables us to take a step back—or perhaps I should say to dive deeper within—and analyze our own thoughts and behaviors the same way we normally evaluate other people’s. Any philosophy worth its salt should make us question what we think we already know, ask questions we’ve never asked before, and put our own egos to the side as we try to uncover the truth about the world. Although true objectivity is probably impossible, our goal is to evaluate claims without allowing our personal biases to cloud our judgment.
Stoicism offers some wonderful tools for thinking about our own judgments. Today, with the help of Stoic philosophy, I’d like to look at two types of error in our social judgments: the error of being overly judgmental, and the error of being overly tolerant.
On the one hand, some people out there are extremely judgmental and critical of others, thinking that the way they personally do things is the only right way to do things. They believe everyone else should feel the way they feel, think the way they think, and do what they do. Anyone who does things differently is just wrong, and the overly judgmental person feels no qualms about voicing their strong opinions. Particularly in the political realm, many people feel that their own opinion is morally correct, and anyone who disagrees with them is morally wrong. This type of moralizing is of course itself a moral error, both perverse in its presentation and insidious in the social damage it causes.
On the other hand, some people make the opposite mistake—being under-judgmental (if I may coin a phrase) in the name of tolerance and kindness. They might think that all opinions are equally valid, that no one should be judged for anything, and that moral agency and responsibility are purely an illusion. This is perhaps an extreme version of moral relativism, suggesting that all social truths and moral preferences are valid in their own context.
People taking both of these positions often believe they have the moral high ground. The overly judgmental person may believe they are enforcing the correct belief (a.k.a., their own belief) on society, and the under-judgmental person may believe they are being compassionate by demonstrating open-mindedness and fairness. (Sometimes the two even occur together!) However, there are significant problems with each of these tendencies. Let’s examine each of these more closely and see what Stoicism can offer in both these situations.
Mistake 1: Being overly judgmental
Automatically criticizing people who do things differently from you
I don’t think I need to spend a lot of time explaining how judgmental people behave—we’ve all seen them before. Demanding that other people respect their opinion, even though they don’t respect other people’s opinions. Criticizing anyone who doesn’t see life the way they see it. Trying to force their own moral norms on everyone else. This impairment can afflict people of any age, sex, nationality, social class, political persuasion, or era. It’s an unfortunately widespread risk of being human.
The Cambridge Online dictionary defines judgmental as “too quick to criticize people” or “tending to form opinions too quickly, esp. when disapproving of someone or something.” If we want to avoid this type of error in our thinking and judgments, one option is to become more nonjudgmental, which means “avoiding judgments based on one's personal and especially moral standards” (according to Merriam-Webster).
The ancient Stoics certainly offered advice on becoming nonjudgmental. Even Marcus Aurelius—who literally judged the most important cases in the realm—and Epictetus—who was not exactly known for being soft and cuddly—advised that we limit our social judgments as much as possible:
Never praise or criticize anyone for things that may be either good or bad, nor take that as evidence of aptitude or want of aptitude, and then you'll escape both hasty judgments and malice. ‘This man washes very quickly.’ Is he doing anything wrong then? Not at all. Well, what is doing? Washing quickly. ‘So everything is done well, then?’ By no means, but what is done as a result of correct judgments is well done, and what is done as a result of bad judgments is badly done. But until you know what judgment a person is acting upon in each of his actions, you should neither praise nor criticize his action.
Epictetus, Discourses, 4.8, 1-3
It is possible to form no opinion on this matter and not be troubled in one's mind; for things themselves are not of such a nature that they can create judgments within us.
Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, 6.52
If he did wrong, the ill lies with him; but perhaps he did not.
Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, 9.38
Not holding an opinion about something or someone can be the best choice when you don’t know enough about the person or situation to make a reliable evaluation. Epictetus says that since we usually don’t know people’s true intentions, we don’t have enough information to legitimately judge them, and we should therefore suspend judgment. People often make the mistake of either not considering someone’s intentions at all, or of falsely believing that they know the other party’s intentions and are entitled to judge. Both of these are the result of sloppy thinking and self-centeredness (someone believing themselves to be more important and knowledgeable than they really are).
But there’s another way to be less judgmental: holding a definite opinion about something but understanding that other people are entitled to a different opinion. In some cases you might believe that there is only one right answer, but you show compassion and understanding toward people who disagree with you:
In his relations with others, [the prokopton] will always be frank and open with one who is like himself, and will be tolerant, gentle, forbearing, and kind with regard to one who is unlike him, as likewise to one who is ignorant and falls into error on matters of the highest importance; and he will never be harsh with anyone because he fully understands the saying of Plato, that '“no mind is ever willingly deprived of the truth."
Discourses, 2.22, 35-36
Epictetus has a special way of looking at these conflicts of opinion. He calls our moral concepts for right and wrong “preconceptions” (prolepsis in Greek) and suggests that clashes arise when we apply these general preconceptions to particular cases:
Preconceptions are common to all people, and one preconception doesn’t contradict another. For who among us doesn’t assume that the good is beneficial and desirable, and that we should seek and pursue it in every circumstance? And who among us doesn’t assume that what is just is honourable and appropriate? When does contradiction arise, then? It comes about when we apply our preconceptions to particular cases, as when one person says, ‘He acted well, he’s a brave man,’ while another says, ‘No, he’s out of his mind.’ That is how people come to fall into disagreement.
Discourses, 1.22, 1-3
Everyone agrees that we should all do what is “right and proper,” but people have different views on what is right and proper. It is the philosopher’s task to become properly educated, “to learn to apply our natural preconceptions to particular cases in accord with nature” (1.22, 9). While Epictetus sometimes focuses on the outcomes of these moral reflections, more often than not he emphasizes the reasoning process itself over the specific conclusions that are reached:
But these concepts of the reasonable and unreasonable mean different things to different people, as do those of good and bad, and the profitable and unprofitable. It is for that reason above all that we have need of education, so as to be able to apply our preconceptions of what is reasonable and unreasonable to particular cases in accordance with nature.
Discourses, 1.2, 5-6
Is this the starting point of philosophy? Is everything right that appears right to each person? And how could it be possible for conflicting opinions to be right? So they can’t be right in every case. But perhaps those that appear right to us specifically? Why to us rather than to the Syrians, or to the Egyptians? Or rather than what strikes me personally, or some other person, as being right? There’s no reason to think that some are more likely to be right than others. And so the opinion that each person holds is not a sufficient criterion for determining the truth.
When it comes to weights and measures, too, we aren’t satisfied with mere appearances, but have devised a standard to test them out in each case. In the present area, then, is there a higher standard than mere opinion? And how is it possible that that which is most vital for human beings should lie beyond determination, beyond discovery?
‘There surely must be a standard.’
Why don’t we seek it out, then, and discover it, and after having discovered it, put it to use without fail ever afterwards, never departing from it by so much as a finger’s breadth? For that is something, I think, which, when found, will rescue from madness those who use opinion as their sole measure in everything, so that from that time onward, setting out from known and clearly defined principles, we can judge particular cases through the application of systematically examined preconceptions.
Discourses, 2.11, 14-18
Given how difficult it is to determine what is right in a given situation, we should approach other people’s opinions with openness and curiosity. Perhaps they know something we don’t and they can help us come closer to the truth. Or conversely, if we approach them with respect and humility rather than judgmental condescension, we can convince them that our opinion is correct.
Mistake 2: Being overly tolerant
Thinking that “kindness” and “tolerance” are always the solution
Now, don’t get me wrong—I’m an advocate of kindness and tolerance myself. The problem is that these are often vague, broad, poorly-defined, catch-all terms for a wide range of attitudes and behaviors, some of which may be truly virtuous in any given situation, and some of which may not be. Some people toss kindness around as a platitude—just be kind!—and feel like saints. But kindness and tolerance can cover up some truly disturbing and unwise social behaviors. When it comes to thinking about our social interactions, we need to get more specific than just kind and tolerant.
Stoic kindness does not mean being blandly nice to everyone, everywhere, all the time. It means being well-disposed toward people and wanting to benefit them, but sometimes that requires pushing back, standing against, disciplining, or showing tough love. It doesn’t mean just being okay with everything people do. We have ethical standards that have been carefully thought out—beyond just “that’s what I think” or “that’s the way I do it,” as discussed above—and sometimes we are in a position to hold others accountable for their unethical behavior. Sometimes we can do nothing to change their behavior, and that’s when we have to get out our Stoic fortitude and bear with them. However, there is nothing kind about suffering through someone else’s bad behavior when it’s within your power to change it.
Principled kindness doesn’t mean tolerating whatever or overlooking inappropriate behavior. It does mean looking into the judgments that are leading people to make those choices, and understanding the range of different judgments that are acceptable. We decided above that other people don’t always have to do things the way we do, but that doesn’t mean anything goes. There is a range of reasonable ethical choices, and outside of that range tolerance begins to be unkind—unkind to the people negatively impacted by the unethical behavior, and to the person him or herself, since what that person really needs is correction. Stoics believe that a good life lies in having a good character, so sometimes the kindest thing we can do is correct unwise behavior.
Reducing Errors in our Own Social Judgment
Obviously it can be difficult to detect whether you are making the mistake of being overly judgmental or under-judgmental. How do you know? How do we walk the fine line between being a moralizing scold and being overly permissive? I think there are a few steps we can take in any given situation to be as rigorous and objective as possible in analyzing our own thinking.
Identify the key factors. Define the situation and issues at stake. Clarify who the agents and impacted parties are. Carefully consider what outcomes are likely.
Identify the range of acceptable behaviors. It’s important to understand that there may be a range of alternative opinions that have moral grounding and could legitimately be considered right. Even if you don’t consider them correct, you recognize that a reasonable person has grounds for considering them correct. That’s not to say anything goes; some opinions are clearly not morally acceptable. But given the complexity of human morality, there may be more than one solution a morally responsible person could support.
Look at intentions. Even though you probably can’t know other people’s intentions and motivations for sure, you can make an effort to think about things from their point of view. Don’t just think about what you would do in that situation; think about what a different person with different life experiences might do in that situation. Try not to assume they have the same thoughts and motivations that you would.
Remain as calm and respectful as possible while carrying out your judgment. When you do decide to judge others, comport yourself with dignity and give them as much respect as you can in that situation. Even if you are showing tough love or standing against someone, you can do so with virtue and the desire to benefit others. Attitude makes a big difference.
Concluding Thoughts
Human rationality is so closely intertwined with our sociability that social reasoning is among our most valuable and important abilities. And because human nature, and the dazzling variety of societies we have constructed for ourselves, is so complex, moral questions are rarely simple, straightforward, or cut-and-dry. Conflicts, ambiguities, and differences of opinion abound—and always will. So the ways in which we dish out social judgment is an important aspect of our lives.
By turning our reasoning ability inward and shining a spotlight on our own thinking patterns, we can try to subject our own judgments to the same scrutiny we usually reserve for others. No one is perfect, and surely we will all make mistakes sometimes in being over- or under-judgmental (and of course I include myself here). But we can at least try to reduce our errors in social thinking, and if we recognize an error we can take steps to correct it. This will bring us one step closer to being truthful about the world and living in agreement with everything, and everyone, in it.
Another excellent article full of insight and will be helpful for stoics of all hues. I have come to see that many conflicts and social problems are indeed related to brain biases and your suggestions for how these can be mitigated is very helpful. To me this is what modern stoicism is all about: using modern science to help us attain wisdom and reach our potential.
I thoroughly enjoyed your insights on errors in social judgement, especially the discussion on the balance between being overly judgmental and overly tolerant. Stoicism's practical tools for self-examination and balanced judgment are wonderfully articulated. This is a thought-provoking and practical read for me. Thank you for sharing.