Why do people say "Who are you to judge?" or "Who are you to say?" ?

Question

These questions are self-refuting, and try to make oneself morally superior by doing the exact same thing they criticize- judging. If one feels that judging is wrong, why do they judge someone else by implying that they have no right to judge?

For instance- person #1 says abortion is wrong (you can insert any hot button issue here). Person #2 says "Who are you to say?". Person #2 can simply reply by saying "Who are you to say 'Who are you to say'?"

Now I know that people would come back and say (in this particular example) "If you've never had an abortion, how could you say" This implies that only the person who's done action(s) is the one who has the right to a judgement call. If this were the case then only Hitler was the rightful judge of what he did on his continent, that is not right.

When someone implies that no one has a right to judge, they judge and are unknowingly making a judgement about themselves.

What do you all think? Agree or disagree?

locnload03-
That's a good point. Let's say though that we are talking about the war- If #2 is a college educated foreign policy expert and says "Who are you to judge?". Wouldn't #1 still be entitled to make his own judgement for or against the war?


By the way, to all of you- at the end of my example I meant-

Person #1can simply reply to #2 by saying "Who are you to say 'Who are you to say'?"

My mistake.

Answer 1

An extremely good and valid point you make in asking that question!!!!

Most often people probably are not aware that they themselves are in fact judging when they say such things!

If they ARE aware of it, my guess would be that its easier to point the finger at someone else than to take responsibility for their own actions/viewpoints and/or accept/correct some flaw in themselves.

Answer 2

You are correct--in a sense--that the argument is self-refuting. They are making a judgment while telling others not to judge. And I think there are actually two reasons why people do this.

First--and primarily--they do it because they want morality to be a personal matter. They want to be free to choose right and wrong for themselves, and they feel "offended" if someone steps on their toes by suggesting that they are wrong. They ignore the fact that morality is NOT up to the individual in so doing, however. There are no good reasons for believing in that type of morality--a self-determined and self-serving morality is pointless (and fails to make sense out of what we mean by "morality").

Second, and subsequent to this, they find that they have run out of ideas to defend their poor judgment, so they resort to trying to defend their position by definition. They attack the questioner, rather than responding to the question--an absurd form of argument ad hominem (against the person). Since they find themselves on the defensive, they seek to turn the tables by asking a question designed to put the other person on the defensive--to shift the focus to a question of sound judgment instead of the issue that raised the question in the first place.

So this is a "cop out" sort of response. They have nothing left to say, they have decided what they want "right" to be for themselves, and they don't want to hear what anyone else has to say about it. So why did they bring up the question in the first place? Good question.

However, I do have to make one comment related to your observation. Neil Postman wrote an article several years back called "Confusing Levels of Abstraction" in which he suggested that statements like this may not be quite as contradictory as we might think. That is, a judgmental statement about judging may not actually describe itself, because the statement about judging operates at a different level of abstraction than the statements about which it is made.

Postman's example, if I remember correctly, was about Cretans who say, "All Cretans are liars." If the statement is true, then the person saying it is a liar--and how can we believe him? Postman explains that the statement, "All Cretans are liars," operates at a different level of abstraction--it is not "self referential," so does not include itself in the class of objects being described. It is basically a mathematical concept that Postman is working with--a set cannot itself be a member of the set.

So while it seems that you are correct--Person #1 in your conversation could simply reply, "Who are you to say, 'Who are you to say?'?"--it is possible that Person #2 originally made a statement that does not fall into its own criticism.

Just some food for further thought.

Answer 3

I think this happens when person #1 makes remarks about person #2, rather than actually debating the question. Person #1 is then passing judgment on person #2, instead of just stating his/her own thoughts on the subject.

I don't mind listening to someone who will talk about a subject, but I draw the line when s/he starts attacking the people who don't agree with his/her personal opinion.

Answer 4

There is the other point that is expressed best in some religious codes. judge not lest you yourself are judged. These phrases are injunctions against prejudice or being overly self righteous, and suggestions for the live and let live attitude. Hitler might have been the best Judge of his acts. His self imposed sentence was the death penalty.

Answer 5

Saying "who are you to judge?" is not judging, it's asking if that person has some special reason to feel that they have a right to judge. For e.g; person#1: "abortion is wrong" person#2: "who are you to say?" Person #1's answer could be " I was a certified gynecologist and performed numerous abortions and knowing what I know, I feel it is wrong."
By asking "who are you to judge?" person #2 has made sure not to wrongly judge person #1 by assuming that person#1 doesn't have a good reason to make that judgment.
That's my opinion :0}

Answer 6

"Judge not" beautiful simplicity offered by wisdom. Any judgment of that simplicity creates vicious circle of never ending complexity, which cannot be resolved. That simplicity can be applied only individually, as is, then it unfolds its secret for a seeker.
Who are you to say/judge( well , saying is a form of judgment) implies existence superiority and superiority implies existence of inferiority...Two polarities in eternal fight one with another. Does not matter which side you taking you will be involved in a battle. And if we are about to find Peace, then...Judge not.

Answer 7

I agree with you on the point, those questions are all to often loosely used. Commonly done in anger and frustration. Who are you to judge me unless you have walked in my shoes. Who are you to say what my life is like, etc. etc. You certainly wouldn't ask a Supreme Court Judge , Who are you to judge? He/she was appointed to do so. Sometimes it's just an overused question or expression. Would it be better to say, Who am I to judge?, Or who am I to say? To me that sounds like you have no insight to make any kind of judgment calls, or have your own opinions.

Answer 8

I'll just focus on the first question, answer "why do people say 'who are you to judge'?".
People say such things when they loose ground... when people attach so much to an idea that they loose clarity. Clarity needed to think straight, to aknowledge that someone else might be able to enlighten them. Being humble is the best way to avoid making such trivial judgements and comments.

Answer 9

i've come to learn that if one doesnt make judgement calls they wind up being a fool, to themselves and others,,,,, opinion is mostly what comes from those so willing to "judge", to the person who has to ask,"who are you to judge", and we all know about opinons:) , i take 'em in stride might get to see something i didnt notice,,,, nothing like a novice to show one the way to a new thought

Answer 10

When people say those kinds of things they are usually just saying that 'I want to make that call', sometimes saying 'look out you're heading for troube', and occassionally saying that we could all benefit from being a bit more humble.