This paper argues for an Arendtian perspective on judging and judgment in business ethics. We show how lay framings of judgment as something polite citizens should refrain from doing undermines and stymies scholarly considerations of how judging is pervasive in human interacting. Also demonstrated, is how associating judgment solely with decision-making is overly restrictive. Judgment is located within Arendt’s vita activa, alongside thinking and willing; judging supplies the ethical, moral and critical underpinning. Arendt’s idea of sensus communis is drawn from to show how each judgment bears the traces of the communities the judging actor is emplaced within. We support our argument by analysing transcripts from the Public Inquiry into the United Kingdom’s Post Office Horizon Scandal, described as the country’s “most widespread miscarriage of justice”. We highlight judgment’s role in the events that unfolded and in how those involved employed it in their evidence to the inquiry. Specifically, we discern and discuss “judgment calls”, “judgment denials” and “misjudgments”. A novel framing of judging ethical issues is offered.
