HOW TO JUDGE JUDGEMENTS

THE natural use the word 'judgement' is to denote a mental act of attributing a predicate to a subject.

- 

In that sense, the act of judging primarily involves inference, that is, determination of the connotation of the subject, or attribution of certain property to the object even if the inference arrived at, or the attribution cast upon, are not justified or derived through argumentation.

This conception, rooted in the classical tradition extending from Aristotelian logic through contemporary analytic philosophy, generally understands judgement as the attribution of properties to particular objects or subjects.

In the legal context, where a judge is required to deliver a judgement based on facts and to justify the inference or attribution, this conception reflects as the determination that particular factual or normative claims are true or false. This determination carries significant practical consequences.

When a court determines that a person is guilty of negligence, it is making a substantive assessment about the relationship between 'individual agency' and the legal consequence of the use of the agency. The underlying conclusion is the result of determinations about personal identity over time, the nature of causal responsibility, and the ontological status of legal properties. In this case, the court has passed a judgement that a person is guilty of a particular offense, and it differs from a more generalised judgement that "negligence must be punished with liability".

However, some judgements do not involve such attributions or objects. This dimension concerns their relationship with truth as a determination, recognition or attribution of truth values to factual or normative claims.