Respect: earned or given?

Post Reply New Topic

What exactly does it mean to require people to 'earn' your respect?

It seems to be a popular philosophy amongst younger people especially, that respect needs to be earned. Does this mean that the default is not respecting the vast majority of people? How exactly is someone whom you don't have extensive dealings with supposed to earn this respect. For instance, if you are a work colleague who doesn't work in the same department, but occasionally deals with someone with this philosophy - do you automatically go in the 'disrespect' pile?

It has always been my personal philosophy that all beings are worthy of a certain level of 'respect' due to being sentient beings that are capable of suffering like I am. This is especially true of other humans. I only withdraw respect if someone does something that makes me think that they don't deserve it (which has to be pretty bad). I'm not sure if this philosophy is a product of my religious upbringing, or my temperament. I can't give a logical reason for acting this way, but it 'feels' right. To do otherwise feels very wrong.

I ask this because where I work, I see students saying it and even saw 'Respect: earned not given' on a t-shirt today. Is it just a badass-sounding (and cliche) thing to say, or an actually thought-through philosophy? How exactly is it applied?

perhaps one shouldnt look at it in the black and white view of respect/disrespect.

but a fluid scale of respect, most people you meet and have no connection to sit in a neutral middle ground(well i suppose this can vary from person to person, perhaps that in itself is why some take a vastly different aproach to people and life in general)
now if he was a collegue i would automatically feel more respect than i would a random stranger, just as i might respect someone that stood up for someone in public more than i did before, not that i had any actual disrespect before.

so when you hear someone say that respect is earned it is far from always with the impplied meaning that we are all by default disrespected,
you can respect a sentient being for what it is, most would probably say human, important distinciton, yet still allow for one to adjust that respect in accordance with observed behavior, in both directions.

what it is usually being used as an argument against are blatant and often blind appeals to authority, something we could all do with less of.

I'm one of the "earned not given" people. I just view it in a way that says "treat everyone with a required minimum of decency, have the same standards for everyone and if they show themselves worthy of respect, give it to them". Until people have shown their value to me, I simply do not respect them, to me, they simply are.

How do you define respect?

Where I work, it's usually used as an argument against coming into class on time or not listening to your MP3s while the teacher is talking.

A lot of the younger people I see expect respect to be given, even if they acting like ignorant fools.

I believe earning respect means doing right, being honorable, things like that.

as whitrbbit wrote they themselves dont deserve much respect,

their ignorance on this subject makes anyone observant of this matter aware of that, a sort of sweet irony i suppose.

3.
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.

Personally I kind of use both to an extent on this one.

I treat everyone I don't know or do, with acertain level of respect, the same I would extend to another human being in the interests of being civil and polite (probably more than most do, in all honesty). What they choose to do with it is up to them after that - if they behave badly consistently, naturally I do not extend the same "neutral" amount anymore (In most cases if they have done something really urgh {like bullying someone repeatedly}). For anyone to get above the "neutral" line, then yes, they have to earn it.

I think the "respect is earned and not given" thing - it seems largely to refer to authority figures, at least here. Like teachers who demand respect simply for being teachers evven though they are horrible people and terrible at their job, etc. I have one of these at the moment, she has bullied one guy in front of them entire class, breaking confidentiality while doing it, and while being racist, but yet she demands respect and demands everyone be on time, regardless that she treats the entire class like crap. Another example: a boss who demands it but treats others badly.

I largely see it as a backlash against authority figures who demand it from others but give none themselves, even that basic neutral level they don't give. Even in a teacher-sudent relationship, there needs to be a certain level of respect extended both ways. Or with a manager and an employee.

Last edited by Kjas on 18 Sep 2012, 6:45 am, edited 1 time in total.

Everyone I encounter is given a default level of respect. As I get to know them the level of respect can go up or down. So a default level of respect is always given but additional respect is earned (or lost).

I don't understand this. If everyone thought this way wouldn't everyone go around disrespecting each other because they haven't "earned" respect yet causing no one to ever earn it?

no

Not really, neutral level of respect is not "disrespect".

That's kind of how teenagers work.

I agree that respect should extend both ways, and I think that the best cue that you need to withdraw it is when you give it but don't get it back.

I think of respect in categories. Respecting another's rights and respecting them as an individual are completely different. The latter is because of who they are, the former is because of who you are.