"How much easier it is to be critical than to be correct." Benjamin Disraeli
Yeah, I don't like this one. It hits too close to home. I don't mind talking about others' problems, but I am convicted a bit when truth forces me to change or makes me uncomfortable. It is easy for me to offer intellectual justification for my shortcomings, but much more difficult for me to face my own sin.
Derrick
Update: Does this mean I have no footing to stand on when I make a criticism of someone's point of view or a "Christian's" lifestyle? I don't think so. And I do not say that simply because I want to have justification to make a criticism. If I am not allowed to say something is wrong simply because I don't want to "judge" another or say something is wrong, or if I have done it in the past, then no one can say anything about anyone.
The reletivivism of today would have no problem with this because one of their catch phrases is "who are you to judge". Well, it seems simple to see the problem is that we all make judgements, even the one who tells us it is wrong to judge.
Truth matters, and ideas have consequences. Until that changes, I will strive to offer a fair challenge to those I think are mistaken and in some cases, wrong. I would expect nothing less from someone who disagrees with me or thinks I am wrong. I could be wrong, but I think that is a good approach.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
6 comments:
Derrick,
That is not only a good approach, it is a great approach. What you had to say was very well stated and easily digested. A debate or challenge on a topic can be healthy, invigorating, and eye opening to different views. " Bright's Ideas" carries no personal attacks on an individual due to their thoughts and ideas, ever. It is always a comfortable place to discuss topics in a very respectful forum. Too bad political television advertisements can't act in this same responsible way.
I don't think I really get the quote. I think it is easy to be correct. It would make more sense to me if it said that it is easier to be critical than wrong. In that case, I can see that in some cases I would rather point out some other person's shortcomings than admit that I am wrong. So, I guess I don't see the application of the quote in that way.
However, I do agree that we need to be "judging" others behaviors. As long as we use the "who are you to judge" thing, we should all be allowed to do whatever we want whenever we want. And that is not good. I think a big distinction needs to be made about what kind of judging is acceptable in society. It should be a pure kind. Not the kind that looks at a behavior an automatically attacks the person. But, a kind that has the person's and others best interest in mind. Does that make sense?
I believe that much of this goes back to the old saying of,"walking in another's shoes". Although easy to superficially judge the actions of another, we sometimes do not know the root cause or reason they do so or why. What seems inappropriate to one may be rather mild to another. What is medicine for one is poison to another. This can be even taken in the editorial text. I suppose that this is a good reason to understand the actions of another even though it may look like something we personally would not do or say.
Tracy said...
I don't think I really get the quote. I think it is easy to be correct. It would make more sense to me if it said that it is easier to be critical than wrong. In that case, I can see that in some cases I would rather point out some other person's shortcomings than admit that I am wrong. So, I guess I don't see the application of the quote in that way.
That makes sense. Most of us do not have a problem being right. If we didn't think we were right, we would have a difficult time justifying our thoughts, actions and beliefs.
Maybe the quote has to do with the ease it is for us to critique another person's view without having to give any justification for our own view. Kind of like a worldview shell game.
Someone asks us why we believe something and we then throw out why we don't think they are right instead of dealing with the original question.
However, I do agree that we need to be "judging" others behaviors. As long as we use the "who are you to judge" thing, we should all be allowed to do whatever we want whenever we want. And that is not good. I think a big distinction needs to be made about what kind of judging is acceptable in society. It should be a pure kind. Not the kind that looks at a behavior an automatically attacks the person. But, a kind that has the person's and others best interest in mind. Does that make sense?
Can you give an example of how judging would have a person's best interest in mind?
Derrick
Russ said...
I believe that much of this goes back to the old saying of,"walking in another's shoes". Although easy to superficially judge the actions of another, we sometimes do not know the root cause or reason they do so or why.
On one hand this sounds good and many times it is generous to give folks the benefit of the doubt. Also, it is important to take action and behavior in context.
However, there are some things that, I would assert, do not need too much "understanding" or walking in another person's shoes to know how difficult something is or how wrong something is (as they are two distinctions)
If someone is a drug addict or an chronic alcoholic, I don't think I need to know the reasons why they do it in order to be able to judge their actions as wrong and sinful.
If someone is torturing babies for fun, I don't really care for the reasons [they just need to stop] for them doing this. (The only possible thing would be if it was done to save the life of another-though it is probably not the case)
What seems inappropriate to one may be rather mild to another. What is medicine for one is poison to another.
This is, perhaps, a good view in light of cultural things. However, in terms of morality, there is less flexibility.
To be fair, there are some cultural mores that could slip into this category; however, there are some times where "poison is poison" regardless of whether your culture or a consensis believes it to be true.
This can be even taken in the editorial text. I suppose that this is a good reason to understand the actions of another even though it may look like something we personally would not do or say.
Fair enough, as far as it goes. I think many folks use this to relativise the possibility of a morality that is outside of ourselves, that is, values that are right or wrong at all times when applied to each person in a particular situation.
Derrick
An example of how judging would have a person's best interest in mind......Let's say that there is guy who is nice to females in order to get them in bed. As soon as he gets what he wants, he cuts the girl out of his life. This would equate to many one night stands. It would be important to judge this person's behavior as inappropriate and harmful. It is both harmful to him, and to the females. The best approach would not be to be harsh to him and tell him that he is a disgusting jerk. The better approach would be to try and help him understand the dangers of his behavior.
Post a Comment