Clarifying respect
Jan. 27th, 2003 10:26 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lederhosenOkay, so I probably shouldn't have posted at 2 in the morning... let me clarify some of what I said.
As Anna points out, some beliefs are hard to respect, or even tolerate. And although I was far from clear on the point, I never suggested that all beliefs should be respected, or even tolerated. I used to know a couple of Scientologists; they were nice people, and they weren't doing the Church's dirty work, so I could tolerate them, but not respect; at the far end of the spectrum, there are people who believe I deserve to die simply for not sharing their religion - or for being a US citizen - and even tolerance would be a mistake there.
But I do believe that there are plenty of cases where we could show a lot more respect than we do. I know people, otherwise good people, who seem to feel that (for instance) if somebody is Christian, they must be narrow-minded and prudish. And they'll go out of their way to 'tolerate' that Christianity by making a big show of "not in front of the Christians" - without even taking the trouble to find out whether the person they're talking to is that conservative. That, IMHO, is lack of respect - and worse, not even bothering to find out enough of what that person does believe to know whether their beliefs can be respected.
As Anna points out, some beliefs are hard to respect, or even tolerate. And although I was far from clear on the point, I never suggested that all beliefs should be respected, or even tolerated. I used to know a couple of Scientologists; they were nice people, and they weren't doing the Church's dirty work, so I could tolerate them, but not respect; at the far end of the spectrum, there are people who believe I deserve to die simply for not sharing their religion - or for being a US citizen - and even tolerance would be a mistake there.
But I do believe that there are plenty of cases where we could show a lot more respect than we do. I know people, otherwise good people, who seem to feel that (for instance) if somebody is Christian, they must be narrow-minded and prudish. And they'll go out of their way to 'tolerate' that Christianity by making a big show of "not in front of the Christians" - without even taking the trouble to find out whether the person they're talking to is that conservative. That, IMHO, is lack of respect - and worse, not even bothering to find out enough of what that person does believe to know whether their beliefs can be respected.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-01-26 04:09 pm (UTC)Ah, now that I'm with 100%. I do try to think the best of people and not make general assumptions based on things like age, religion, politics, or preferred character class even though my natural cynicism works strongly against me there.
But checking first is good. After all, I can't properly disrespect someone unless I know exactly what I'm disrespecting them for.
no subject
Date: 2003-01-26 06:35 pm (UTC)"Why should I disrespect someone based on their religion when after you're around them for ten minutes, you can find so many other good reasons to disrespect them?"
Er. Not to throw a wrench in the works; Art's point is 100% on target.
no subject
Date: 2003-01-26 08:12 pm (UTC)There are huge numbers of reasons that can be found to have to tolerate someone, and in the end each persons list misses all their own faults.
I know there are many reasons for people to need tolerance with me.
To respect someone can be completely independent of their views.
In fact it should be.
I respect everyone for surviving day-to-day in an increasingly difficult world.
I respect everyone who attempts to formulate an ethos or world view that goes beyond eat/reproduce (even if the ethos has been forced on them, they have my respect for trying to live with it, or develop it, or even promulgate it)
I respect everyone who thinks that they have reached enough understanding to want to share their ethos.
That does not mean I have to accept it.
It also doesn't mean I understand it.
It may be that their ethos is genuine, useful or even correct. (As Rowan Atkinson put it in his sketch The Devil while checking the new recruits "Christians? Ah there you are. Yes, I'm afraid the Jews were right" - just cause you have faith in your own view doesn't mean it is ultimately correct - if there even is such a thing as ultimately correct)
In practice I think there are good and bad ways to live. Ways that will improve the world and ways that won't. Art has just postulated that going beyond tolerance to respect is one useful way, and has seen fit to share that view with others. There are definitely people out in the world who believe that to even tolerate what you dislike is an ultimate evil. I can't say their wrong, or even unworthy of my respect. All I can say if that I agree with Art that respect makes the world a better place.
But I think there is an easier mark to aim at. The bible offers in in one form; Love thy neighbor as thyself. If you can learn to look at every being as your _Exact_ equal, then you will come to treat them with the respect they deserve, and better, you may come to treat yourself with the respect you deserve. No other being is lesser or inferior. They may be poorly led (transliterated from misguided), disadvantaged by wealth or position (It can be hard to remain true to yourself if you are rich or powerful), or just afraid (the great American malaise - if you don't understand, see Bowling for Columbine). Nor is any other being greater or superior. They may seem it, but if they seem wiser or more enlightened, it is probably that you are understanding what they are saying - in which case you are as enlightened. It may be they seem bolder - which probably means they don't suffer the same weight of fear. They may seem less troubled by worldly needs, in which case they have less responsibilities to attend to.
You are the equal of every being.
So they are your equal.
So what is there not to respect.
I'll finish my rant with two quotes.
A friend once proudly announced "I do not tolerate fools gladly". He got this same lecture. Why not tolerate them? There but for the grace of god go I. Could I survive as well as they do with as little wit as they have? They only appear to be fools because I don't understand how they come to their point of view. And if I don't understand, then who is the fool?
Finally a silly poem-ette my Mum occasionally quotes that seems apposite to the discussion...
"Look at the happy idiot - he doesn't give a damn. I wish I was an idiot - my God, perhaps I am!"
Not Suffering Fools Gladly, From Someone Who Doesn't
Date: 2003-01-26 09:09 pm (UTC)Actually, they usually appear to be fools because I understand ALL TOO WELL how they come to their point of view. And I stand by my position that the people who either by implication, or worse, openly persist in denying the objectivity of the universe, elementary logic, the scientific method, etc. have pretty much given up all claim to be sapient in my eyes, never mind worthy of respect.
But then, I'm one of those arrogant elitists. Go me.
no subject
Date: 2003-01-27 03:02 am (UTC)I think there may be a definition problem here. The OED gives two main relevant definitions of respect:
When I think of respect, I think of the first definition. If I say that I respect someone, that's an active admiration. In order for that to mean anything, I have to know them. I'd try to treat anyone I didn't know by the second definition, until they'd demonstrated a reason for me to treat them differently. It's the base state for me.
Do not love thy neighbour as thyself -- his tastes may not be the same.
no subject
Date: 2003-01-26 11:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-01-27 09:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-01-27 06:21 am (UTC)