The Ethics of Withholding Judgement: Can the Refusal to Judge Be Structurally Judged?

This paper explores whether the deliberate act of refusing to judge—motivated by caution, ethical principle, or strategic ambiguity—can itself be evaluated within the structural framework of Judgemental Philosophy. Utilizing the Judgemental Triad (Constructivity, Coherence, Resonance), we analyze if such acts constitute a genuine negation of judgement or merely shift the locus of attribution to a higher-order level. We argue that the refusal to judge is never truly outside the judgemental structure; it functions as a form of meta-attribution ("judgement should not occur here" or "judgement is impossible here"), which must itself satisfy the criteria of Constructivity, Coherence, and Resonance to be considered structurally valid and meaningful. Consequently, even the explicit withholding of judgement becomes, paradoxically, a judgeable act, raising important questions about neutrality, responsibility, and the limits of ethical silence.