I make judgments all the time, about people, about the morality, and desirability of their acts. Not their acts alone, in fact, but their character, their habits, and even their appearance. Sometimes I even speak about those judgments, although that is much rarer. (Well, OK, much rarer if you don’t consider the judgments like “Woah, she is way hot” which I might speak out loud more often than “rarely”.)
I change my behavior all the time, because of those judgments, choosing to associate with people, or not associate with people, or conduct business with people solely on the basis of my judgments of those things. I am sure those judgments are not authoritative for our society as a whole. But they are absolutely authoritative for me.
The judgmentalism that I think we are all looking for is the act of promoting the view that everyone else should be modifying their behavior according to my judgments. Now, in the case of the law, what we have is a common consent to apply a specific code of conduct, and the judgment that failing to do so is not acceptable to the society at large.
There is also the fact of life that there are non legal codes of conduct as well, and the pluralism of belief is a force of considerable strength in our social interactions. If you are widely judged to be a liar, you are not going to be believed whatever the actual content of your current statements, if a person who is not so judged disputes them. The actual facts are not the operant factor for you, any more, unless you have demonstrable proof. Your word is not valued, because of a consensus of judgment.
That might be wrong, for people to think that way. But they do think that way, and your reputed honesty is a thing you must value yourself, or it will be of little value to others. The same thing is true for most elements of character. Kindness, compassion, honor, and a hundred other things that make up your character are not just things about you, but things about the judgments of others.
The one part of judgmentalism that I object to most is the imputation that one has authority beyond that which is inherent in the free will of self. You cannot speak to me of the judgment of history with any authority; you have an opinion. It might be correct, it might even be prophetic. But it is not the judgment of history. And don’t even tell me what the judgment of God is. It is my opinion that you don’t know that, you just have an opinion. And you know what opinions are like.
But it is essential to the nature of free will that I make judgments all the time, and equally essential to mental health that I find some level of acceptance of my own ability, and right to make such judgments. I have a life to live, and no one else can live it for me. I don’t like okra. I will even cook gumbo without okra. Some think that shows a lack of culinary judgment. Fine. Let 'em eat okra. I don’t like the stuff.
And I don’t like watching people be cruel to their children. Even minor cruelties, which are acceptable to my society in general. So, I will speak out, and be labeled as meddling, judgmental, and nosey. It is my judgment that I can handle that better than children can handle idle cruelty.
Tris