Several days ago I posted
The Respect Schematic. There were not many comments, but I was grateful for all the replies, because they helped me realize where I could be more clear in communicating. My replies to some of the comments became so involved, that I decided to save them for this diary post. The central argument I'm trying to make is this: unless we work together to create a more respectful society, we are toast. To do that, we must recognize the central issue of respect, an ancient meme whose time has come.
Below are my replys to some very good questions. I also strongly encourage the interested reader to check out my alter-ego post as a guest blogger on earthfamilyalpha, where the expert and entertaining Oz blogs on climate change and peak oil.
The first poster asked about justice.
This is an interesting point of attack because I'd posit that justice is key...which isn't to say that respect isn't important too.
True justice is self-evident while respect must be earned. In fact, without justice, I'd posit there can be no real respect unless you measure in terms of fear.
I understand your context is respect for the planet, a position I completely agree with.
I tend to favor justice in the context it means doing the right thing, for the planet as well as each other.
A little more opinion here, critical to achieveing justice is equality for without equality there can be no justice and without justice there can be no peace...much less respect.
When someone else observed that if there was more respect, there would be less need for justice, the first poster replied.
I disdain circular explanations but I'll have to bite the bullet here and inquire if the unjust deserve respect? It's kind of a cart & the horse issue here...
Another poster asked my favorite question about the metric of respect.
What is the metric of respect? Honestly, what are you talking about? This is one of those things, like God, that is assumed to be perfectly clear...
In reply:
To be more clear, I would define respect as taking others, oneself and the environment into consideration with one's actions in a way that is calculated to avoid harm as much as possible. This is not a new or original idea, but it is the one that is now most crucial to our survival. We need focus. As a society, we can encourage ourselves not to litter, not to discriminate based on race, not to sexually assault someone, not to keep inching ourselves toward nuclear or environmental disaster, but we also need to stress a simple organizational schematic for what we should be trying to achieve: Respect for others, self, and place. Right now we are at something of a disadvantage, because it is very easy for a child to operate the ubiquitous AK-47, but with all due respect for The Golden Rule, we have no similarly easy-to-use, broadly endorsed credo for a truly civilized society.
Regarding respect and justice, my argument is not so much circular, as it is pyramidal. I see respect as the issue at the top of the pyramid of the issues that we face as human beings trying to survive the 21st century. Justice to me is about righting or addressing wrongs. The term can be used narrowly in the criminal/civil law sense, or more broadly in the economic, environmental or social sense. I remember when "peace and justice" became popular about twenty to thirty years ago, after it was noted that working for an absence of conflict (peace) did not necessarily correct entrenched disparity and injustice. "Justice for all," including the unjust, is an enormous, essential component of any respectful society.
Respect includes righting wrongs, seeking justice, in the broadest sense of that word, but it also means promoting that which is right: a respectful society, one in which the expectation is that people, institutions and nations will respect each other, themselves and the environment, and that each in turn will also be respected by that same society. Therefore I agree with the poster who said: "if there was a surfeit of respect, how much would we need justice?" It is a question worth trying to answer.
The bare bones of a society seeking a "surfeit of respect" is a relentless, perpetual promotion of resolving conflict through honest communication without violence or threats of violence, as much as is humanly possible. Families, tribes, nations and high schools all have some means for promoting at least that type of resepect. Staggeringly, as we prepare to kill ourselves off, there is no broadly popular attempt being made to promote respect within the entire human family.
The "metric of respect" can be measured by the various acts of disrespect. How much toxic waste is going into the ocean right now? How many people have died this year as a result of ethnic cleansing? How many children died as a result of child abuse in your state last year? How many governments imprison people for speaking their mind or practicing their religion? How many are imprisoned and then tortured?
When there is a section of the news that tracks the goal of decreasing disrespectful acts of all kinds, then we will be measuring the metric of respect. When that newspaper section on respect indices is as big as the sports, style or market section, then we will be a lot closer to where we want to be. I would suggest that the gold standard of respect would be the number of humans killed every year by other humans for any reason. When we start promoting respect and measuring the metric of respect, then we will be able to test the respect hypothesis: As more individuals accept a universal principle of respect and respectful behavior, there will be fewer acts of cruelty and violence of all kinds.
Thanks again, to all the posters on the previous diary.