I think your English is pretty understandable. And I feel delighted by your thoughtful and personal comment.

I applaud your line of thinking - you seem to be willing to honestly admit the results of your philosophical inquiry, even when those results appear as non-liberating and pretty scary. (I don't know but I have a feeling that a lot of Western Philosophy, even when disguised as "radical" and "non-biased" actually starts with a naive assumption that "because this thing X feels unpleasant to me, it can't be true! And therefore I need to find a logical and rational arguments proving that X is false! So let's embark on a philosophical quest to prove my own non-questioned emotionally felt biases as the ultimate truth!" Needless to say, to me such an approach seems totally un-philosophical, and I could even describe such an approach as un-ethical =) )

I think there is something similar going on with a deeply felt will to establish a way of living in which we all can live a humane life. As, throughout the history of the mankind it has been a very common structure that a group B makes itself a convenient pleasurable easy living by oppressing a group C, exploiting the fruits of their labor, and giving back only the minimal compensation so that C doesn't starve to death but can carry on producing those fruits of their labor to make B live a luxurious life. And if we start from such a situation, it often is a painful realization for a member of group B to realize that in order to have a humane life for C, B must let go of some of the luxury they previously enjoyed without a need to toil for it. (Again, it could be easy to craft an ideology justifying why it is okay to let C to toil while B enjoys the luxury. To me, any such an ideology seems pretty scary =) )

Oh well. But on the philosophical side; yes I think that every action (or, equally, every non-action) can well be defined as a judgemental act, for we choose something instead of something else. But that is life, the way it is to co-exists in this world with everything else than exists out there. I mean, maybe the difference might lie in the way we see our own decisions. Basically, one of the fundamental questions could be phrased more or less like this: "Suppose we have two alternatives to choose from. 1) is going to bring 80 units of good stuff to me, and 20 units of suffering to others. Alternative 2) is going to bring 60 units of good stuff to me and 20 units of good stuff to the others. Which one should I choose and why?"

Personally, I think there isn't that much a rational answer to the question, simply because questions like these are beyond reason, beyond ideology. But, maybe, it might be possible (pretty much the way you describe) that the more one keeps questioning ones own ideologies - as the ideological constructions collapse, something else might emerge; a sense of wonder "wow, I don't have an explanation to all of this!", a desire to listen, a will to respect the Mystery of The World. And out of that respect emerges a will to be benevolent even when there isn't a rationally proven moral obligation to do so. (Naturally, there are other ways, too. But this is just one possible way. A way I often like to describe, because it runs contrary to the somewhat common assumption that if all the conceptual truths fail then chaos emerges, a swamp of relativism where no moral thrives but we will witness a selfish cynical decadence. I doubt that, for I find it a little bit scary if a person chooses to act benevolently only if there is some grand theory telling to do so. I think maybe benevolence is just written in the fabric of the world. We just need to listen to it. And, yes - like you say - then act motivated by the good will, instead of just remaining passive satisfied by some sort of inner neo-ideology =)