Thread: The relevancy of 'respect'

In the realm of politics, what is respect? How do you define respect? How do you know when someone has respect, and someone doesn't? This thread is directed at burning giraffe - because his response to one of my previous post was 'that's why respect is important'.

Questions like these are questions that I am going to try to explore in this thread.
---
As always, in exploring anything in politics, you need to udnerstand the most basic elements of what it is that you are exploring. In this case, it is the relationships between two different people in society.

Each person has a sense of individuality. This means that I understand events in a certain way, while even someone as close as my brother, will understand events in another way. However, there are some universal truths that go beyond the individual. One of those things, is God. God is above all individuals. While God's existence may be doubted, and cannot be absolutely proven, there are some things that are endemic to humans and universal in their nature, and these things have been termed 'Gods Law', 'natural law', and the like. So while we may never be able to show that a God actually exists, we can see through studying history and/or current events, that God's Law exists, and it usually can be applied without fail.
What are these things?


The best list that I can come up with is this:

1) Something is deemed good by society, if it promotes something good within society.
-> Evidence of this: Take for instance, people who our society looks favorably on. Small business owners, soldiers, family men, religious feeling, etc. All of these things promote a certain thing that our society deems is 'good', in this case: small town pastoralism, a strong America, a family centered America, a community centered America, etc. For whatever reason these things are deemed good, they are; and as a result of this, we can call anything that promotes these things 'good'.

2) Conversely, something is deemed bad by society, if that thing does not promote society, but promotes a small group of individuals
-> Evidence of this: Neo-conservatism, anti-globalism, anti-"elitist politicians" are very prevelant themes within society as society thinks about politics. I speak not of the neo-conservatism that keeps us 'secure', but of the neo-conservatism that wanted to go to war without evidence; similarly, not the globalism that reduces prices, but the globalism that elevates the few over the many. There are accepted ways for doing things; and if something violates those accpted ways, its considered bad.

3) A rational actor will never do something that is considered bad, therefore, to call something 'bad', there needs to be a presence greater than that of the individuals to define what is 'bad'.
-> Everyone will find some justification for doing whatever they want to: even if its for the most mundane reasons. If the actor does something for a reason, then to that actor, it is a good action, because it fufills that reason.

4) In times of trouble, people need someone or something to rally around.
-> Evidence: The presence of 'leaders', of 'governments', and of 'ideaology', that all motivate and strengthen peoples resolve for doing something. I don't think I really need to show this is true.

5) Someone who is in power, and accepts that they are in power, will not give up their power willingly, and will do all they can to maintain that power.
-> Evidence: Here I cite the maxim "absolute power corrupts absolutely". Never have any people given up power; it always has to be taken from them. The confederacy wanted to own slaves; the union had to beat them over the head to tell them no.

6) Willingness to follow someone is more important than someone knowing the correct thing to do.
- > Invading Iran may be a good thing to do (that's up for debate). But it won't happen if the relevant actors aren't willing to follow.

7) Extension of number 4. If it is percieved that someone acts in self interest, and initiates the actions because, they lose any 'goodness' they may have had.
- > A common lprotest line against the war: "No blood for oil". Oil is seen to be a self-interest. Blood is seen to be something more sacred than oil.

8) By being something, you are expected to be that something.
-> No one likes a hypocrite.

So. Recap.
1) An action by an individual is deemed good by his society if it promotes the greater good.
2) An action by an individual is deemed bad by his society if it promotes the individual and not society.
3) An actor will never do something bad, unless the society of actors agree to a set of principles to govern their action.
4) People will rally around leaders in times of trouble.
5) Those leaders will not willingly give up their leadership positions.
6) Belief in leaders is most important.
7) Because there is no universal enemy, there will naturally arise different leaders.
8) Be what you are.

Why do I bring all of this up.

I speak of this of course in response to the claim that US has lost all respect around the world. I find that claim to be wrong. The US has not lost all respect, it has not even lost respect; I will maintain that neo-conservatism, with its distinctly western basis, has energized our enemies and promoted the other leaders around the world. Simply; without "the great satan", no one would care nor would the islamic revolution have been successful.

People are incapable of doing, what they percieve, is a bad act. Every act must be capable of being justified, or else it would not have been done in the first place. It doesn't matter any reason; so long as there is a reason to do something, that something is 'good' to that person - it may not make it legitimately good, but it will make it 'good' to them.

Respect is when someone upholds 'legitimacy'. If you establish legitimacy, then you can say 'my actions were legitimate actions', therefore, in society, it was good. Has US done some actions that appear to be illegitimate? Perhaps. But these are the work of a sect of America. The US govt. Not of the American people.

Argh, I'm going to wrap this up soon. People in the Islamic world haven't lost respect for US govt either. Just, they call themselves "Muslims", and neo-conservatives are "westeners". Or people in France/Germany/Russia are french/german/russian, and don't support "selfish US endeavors" Thus, regiemes around the world say, "oh, we are opposing the tyrant us!" Afterwards, people believe them, because they say 'oh, we are muslim, Iran says that war in Iraq is against Islam, thus we are against war in Iraq, and US by extension". These people are not American. In a crises people go to those that claim to be who they are; those that represent them. That is what happened.
Its percieved that we brought the crises to them. This perception drove them away from us. It has nothing to do with our actions making us lose their respect; our actions were simply sold and brought about through ways that didn't appeal to them. Anytime there are competing empires, the empires lose the respect of the other.

Argh, I rambled too much.

Sorry but I don't believe politics are based on the principles of respect, but on the dynamics of necessity, so I don't have an answer to this question.

Originally Posted by Kanabi

Sorry but I don't believe politics are based on the principles of respect, but on the dynamics of necessity, so I don't have an answer to this question.

I tend to agree with K on this. Respect to me is a cultural concept. I am not sure if its a political one. I think politics is fueled by necessity and its a series of actions designed to justify actions done to fullfill needs.

In regards to respect, I believe one's social or cultural values shape their perception of respect. I believe it is safe to say the closer another society's cultural and social values are to another's the more likely there will be a show of respect.

It hink respect unfortunately on the international level has nothing more to do with finding other countries whose needs and agenda coincide or do not compete with another's. The respect only exists in that each side has a mutual interest.

On a social or cultural level people tend to disrespect that which they do not understand and are not comfortable with.

Now on one level Muslim fundamentalists disrespect the U.S. not because its the U.S. per se but because of its social and cultural values and its moral values. If the U.S. had the exact same fundamentalist theocratic beliefs as say the shiite theocracy of Iran, it would be 'respected". In such a case what we are really talking about is tolerance.

You can't respect someone if you can't tolerate them. Toleration means accepting someone without trying to change them-accepting them as is.

We in the West to not accept nor will we or should we tolerate anyone who advocates violence or terrorism as a legitimate means to express political will.

If certain terror cells or Muslim terrorists do not respect such beliefs it really isn't a matter of respect its a matter of intolerance.

Respect comes from being consistent and having clear standards and codes of conduct that are applied and not constantly adjusted depending on the opportunity or necessity.