There is nothing more difficult, and at the same time, nothing easier than making judgements. In the juridical sphere, judgement is supported by laws, by codes that allow, most of the time, correct decisions. Legal judgements do not necessarily globalize the totality of the individual since they are always related to the behavioural aspects judged positive or negative depending on their insertion in the rules of society, or on the visualization of the structures intrinsic to them. Anti-social attitudes, harmful to the system or to individuals, are easy to apprehend and categorize, although not always easy to solve.

The great problem of judging appears when we establish criticism or praise to the other. Thus, judgement is constantly characterised by being an expression of concepts, prejudices, experiences, in short, of our own truths built along experiences, or based on the consecration of conveniences, social realisation and common sense. In this aspect, we can already perceive that judgement is the tunic, the cloak that is put on to wrap and protect evidences.

To judge the other, it is necessary to put oneself in the other's place, an act that would prevent any generalisations. Besides, there is no way to be the different one, being the similar who judges. Therefore, to situate by difference is difficult, while similarity is more frequent and easier, because, in general, judgements are exercised through self-referenced criteria. This mirror experience provokes refraction, reflection which at the very least illustrates and supports one's own truths, distorts the judged, placing him/her out of focus, inserted in other configurations, consequently distorted.

Judging implies exemption. In the sphere of the Law, this is possible when one follows all the explanations on the subject, including its contradictions and jurisprudence. In everyday life, there is no such possibility of exemption because we participate in the processes with motivations generally alien to them, motivations configured in other structures, other contexts.

Camus, in The Stranger, shows the contingency and limitations of judgments, even in the legal sphere. In this story, it is clear how it is the aspects, the a priori, the previous evidence, which are interpreted. It is fatal to have drunk a cup of coffee at his mother's funeral, and thus, Meursault already demonstrated to his judges, his coldness, the same that made him kill the Algerian.

When we put ourselves in the place of the other - the only way to judge him or her - we realize the senselessness of judgments, because we understand all the motivations of what is considered right or wrong. In the historic trial of the Nazis in Jerusalem, Eichmann defended himself from being condemned for the death of thousands of Jews, alleging that he was following orders, that is, hiding behind responsibility, and also adorning his speech/defence with Kantian ethical concepts. Finally, trying to invalidate his crimes, alleging the exercise of professional responsibility, he said: "it is not my fault". As Hannah Arendt wrote:

It was enough for Eichmann to recall his past to feel assured that he was not lying, that he was not deceiving himself, for he, and the world in which he lived, had once marched in perfect harmony. And German society of 80 million people protected itself against reality and facts in exactly the same way, with the same self-deception, lies and stupidity that were now seen to pervade Eichmann's mindset.

When we address the issue of judgment, the ethical dimensions, which are based on anthropological and psychological criteria, are emphatic. To judge is always to seek victims, as well as to seek heroes. It is always creating new points of convergence to explain successes or mistakes, and in this way judgement is the privileged tool to list, determine and explain configurations that go beyond the limits of the squalid world in which we live.

The confidence that exists in individuals who undergo psychotherapy, for example, is built by the certainty of not being judged, of not being seen as crooks, criminals or problem-solvers. The search to be perceived, to show oneself without masks, is motivating, brings discoveries, brings the new, breaks imprisoning criteria of judgments of successes and mistakes.

In acceptance, in loving integration, here too there is no judgement, what happens is verification and discovery. We can say that he who loves does not judge, that he is integrated with what is experienced, and in these cases judgement would almost be a sclerotic dialogue, because it is full of support, of rules that allow verification, neutralisation of insecurity, but also neutralisation of the ways to deal with what is unknown.

The judgement, in the final analysis, in the search for exemption, is transformed into a tool to be able to glimpse the similar as the other, the distant, the unconfigured, and this is what prevents or makes possible acquittal or conviction.

A priori, certainty, omission, fear, what divides and separates, what establishes sameness, repetition, security and guarantee are the constituents of countless judgements, necessary to control, to establish criteria, and in this context, the one who judges best is worth more, and also the one who escapes victorious from these limiting judgements.