Earning respect.

I think that is a very interesting phrase. One that I can defend or defend against depending on the meaning given. A quick search on the web and one finds folks one all sides of the question of definition.

I think most Americans who subscribe to the notion that respect is earned mean, simply, that the earner is consistent with the views and values of the person granting respect. And not just consistent, but a leader promoting the views and values. A leader of the opposition does not earn respect. And this is the meaning I defend against.

A different meaning is more akin to being a hero. A fireman who enters the severely damaged and still burning building because there MIGHT be someone trapped inside, for instance, has just earned some respect. This is the meaning I can defend. Although for me, it is really a matter of earning "extra" respect.

If one can earn extra respect, is it possible to debit respect? Yes, I think. This is a two (or more) sided coin, too. As the fireman earns respect for putting life and limb at risk for the life of another, the arsonist loses respect for putting the victim at risk. Less dramatically, the fool driving drunk or recklessly loses respect every time they get behind the wheel.

But what is respect, then. Dictionary.com lists three definitions pertaining to people: esteem for or a sense of the worth or excellence of a person, a personal quality or ability, or something considered as a manifestation of a personal quality or ability: I have great respect for her judgment; deference to a right, privilege, privileged position, or someone or something considered to have certain rights or privileges; proper acceptance or courtesy; acknowledgment: respect for a suspect's right to counsel; to show respect for the flag; respect for the elderly; and, the condition of being esteemed or honored: to be held in respect.

By those definitions, one has honorary respect by position even if that position is "old." I say honorary because it really has nothing to do with the individual, rather to the granfalloon the individual is a putative member of. That is certainly not an earned respect to me. I seldom give extra respect due to granfalloon membership.

That leaves the first of the three dealing with a person's worth and so forth. If we assume that everyone has the same "base" level of worth as a human being, that is, no extra respect given, we can assign a level of respect like the balance in an account. To that balance we credit or debit respect.

How, then, do we, as individuals, decide who to credit and who to debit? I think that is almost entirely based on our individual points of view about right and wrong. In my fireman example, it would be easy to imagine a scenario in which the guy with the gasoline can is the hero and the firefighter is the villain. The difference is one of point of view. One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.

I do not think it possible, or even desirable, to eliminate points of view. I believe they are necessary to life (which is, of course, just a point of view and subject to falsification). But I do think it is desirable to KNOW that what we hold as good and condemn as bad is just a point of view and has no inherent reality. And I believe that our most profound decisions, the ones with the biggest consequences, should always be based on our knowledge that right and wrong is subjective and that forcing our opinion on others will lead to prolonged conflicts of various levels of violence.

We should protect ourselves. It is human nature to do so and we will do so. But we should find optimal solutions that don't demonize entire groups of people. We seem to always do this, so maybe we have little choice in the matter, but "official" policy should steer a different course when ever possible.