By D.S. Cook for Apostoic Venn.
A couple years back in my old job, I tossed a simple question into our work group chat to facilitate some discussion. “What books have shaped your values into what they are today?” In rolled the usual suspects, Dale Carnegie’s How to Win Friends and Influence People, Covey’s 7 Habits; solid picks for a professional crowd. Then my boss chimed in. “I’m not much of a reader,” she said. “But my top values include hard work, continual growth, and (here it comes) respect for all.” The thumbs-up emojis and replies of “Absolutely” poured in as the chat resoundingly agreed with this presentation. The sentiment was as popular as warm apple pie, everyone nodded along.
I nodded as well, but not quite along. My inner Stoic (and more importantly, my inner Christian) was in a state of resistance. Something felt off and I needed to sleuth out why. Respect for all people. It sounds so noble. Kind. Inclusive. Altruistic, even. Who could argue? Yet something felt like the cart had bolted ahead of the horse and was now dragging the poor beast like a reluctant toddler. I spent several months turning this over like a coin in my pocket. Two questions kept surfacing:
1. Why is this value so universally praised? Why do so many people rush to list it near the very top when asked about their core principles? What makes “respect for everyone” such a universal high degree on the social thermometer?
2. Is respect for another human a self-containing and inherent good? Does it stand alone as a top-tier virtue, regardless of any priors? Or, is its goodness borrowed from something deeper?
Most people today will happily declare, “I respect everyone.” The proclamation of the thing, not the thing itself, is basically a social law, a staple of the diet we need to survive in professional contexts. But here is food for your thought. Everyone says they respect everyone, but very few (perhaps no-one) claim to be respected by everyone. Most would say they don’t get “enough” respect. There is a slippage here, some form of cognitive dissonance.
So, I became that annoying guy at gatherings and group chats who follows up. I asked the next question; a very unpopular habit. “Ok, but what do you actually mean by respect? When you don’t get it, what exactly is the thing that you lack? When you do get it, what have you gained that you didn’t have before? Can you conceptualize the concept of getting ‘enough’ respect and not needing more?” Naturally, blank stares ensued. Crickets. A few brave souls took a poke at it, but the answers tended to dissolve into value goodwill or circular reasoning. Nobody could define what they were giving or receiving with the free exchange of respect. Until one day a retired Anglican priest gave me an answer that was not all-encompassing, but smacked of truth. His definition was more like what respect should be rather than what it is. “Respect” he said, “is a certain admiration and honor that is given in response to virtue.”
That landed for me. But let’s be honest. That’s an ideal; the way that respect should function in a world ordered toward the good. The plain dictionary definition is more neutral: “a feeling of admiration or high regard for someone because of their qualities, achievements, abilities, or character” (Merriam-Webster/Oxford). Notice that it does not specify good qualities. The world is full of people respecting tyrants for their cunning, thieves for their cleverness, or rap artists for their ability to string violent and foul words together. Evil admires evil, vice respects vice. Apparently “respect” has no quality-control department.
The priest wasn’t wrong, he was prescribing rather than describing what respect becomes when aligned with truth and God’s design. It is more than possible for admirers to admire the wrong things. I’ve certainly done so in my time, like the long-haired rock stars I wanted to be; unencumbered by trivial things such as virtue.” Look, virtue is great and all, but have you seen the fan base angst can build?”
Precisely because of that neutrality of definition, if respect is not admiration for virtue, then it is admiration for vice or neutral mediocrity. Since we (should) all agree that admiring vice is not worthy, and admiring a lazy neutrality scarcely better, then we should all cede to the priest: that the object of our admiration would be best housed in virtue. His idealism may not be “real”, but it is “really” what people ordered toward the good strive for. It follows then that a near-universal sensation of “not getting enough respect” may point to nothing else but a universal shortage in the virtue that merits it. Get virtue, and respect follows in due proportion, like fruit on a healthy tree. At least, to the priest, that’s what “should” happen.
What the Heck is Virtue Anyway?
But what is virtue, biblically speaking? Is it finding your true self? Following your heart? Vague niceness? None of those. Virtue has a source and an author, and its definition precedes mankind rather than flowing from within him. For all of their excellent discourses on virtue, here the Stoics are wrong. The scriptures teach that God’s moral laws, written on the heart of every man and woman to walk this earth, and written on the stone tablets at Sinai, are not arbitrary but elemental. These moral principles are for our good, yes. A society’s well-being and happiness is directly correlated to how well it adheres to them. But they are so much more than that, no less than the eternal attributes of God himself. Fallen man cannot actually attain virtue, nor does it come from within. To the extent that we can grow in it, it is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit bringing our own characters slowly in line with God’s, through the painful process of sanctification. And in the end, your virtue will never be enough to forestall the wrath of a God who is perfectly righteous. You need a substitutional stand-in.
Psalm 19:7-9
The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.
The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether.
Leviticus 11:44-45
For I am the Lord your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy.
Virtue then is what its Author says it is. Love, joy peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control. It is refusing to call good evil, and evil good. It is taking every thought captive, putting to death the old man and rising in repentance each day to try anew. It is loving the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and strength, and loving your neighbor as yourself. These things do not come naturally to us. They are first injected by a power outside of us. Then, practiced; obstructed and trained by many failures.
Well then, since virtue is not our natural state, neither is the respect that comes from virtue. It responds to God’s character reflected in your own actions, and is not a default entitlement.
Our modern philosophy sits in a position entirely divorced from this truth. The mantra “respect for all” means that everyone, absent any meriting virtue, is entitled to its product. It is owed, not earned, on the condition of mere existence; a participation trophy for the incredible achievement of being a breathing creature. It is an entitled demand: You will respect me. You will respect my choices, my words. My actions, my chosen identity. It says “You are evil if you don’t respect my values,” instead of “I am evil because my values do not align with God’s.” This isn’t the honor-for-virtue model the priest idealistically wished for. It’s something different. Something Orwellian.
Enter Nominal Conquest Fallacy (NCF), a logical term I am attempting to formalize after watching too many debates revolve around twisting words instead of building strong syllogisms. (See the proposal for Nominal Conquest Fallacy, Apostoic Venn Episode 13). Here’s the gist: An ideological group or individual redefines a loaded term (like “respect,” “woman,” or “phobic”) to fit a desired agenda, then enforces the new meaning through shame, cancellation, or institutional power. Financial coercion is often the method employed, as adherents to old definitions often risk their very livelihood. Dissent becomes not just “wrong” in the new Orwellian morality, but hateful or violent by definition. Reality no longer defines the words selected by NCF abusers. Words, backed by serious threat, define an anti-reality that is only wished for, not real. The traditional dictionary definition of respect, “a feeling of admiration or high regard for someone because of their qualities, achievements, abilities, or character” gets conquered and replaced by an Orwellian Newspeak definition: “Unquestioning agreement that whatever I say or do is right and true.” Use the old meaning? You are now disrespectful, bigoted, or worse. Total debate shut-down. No need for premises, evidence, or virtue. Linguistic fiat will suffice.
The Stoics on Respect: Marcus Aurelius’ Take on Admiration Foolishly Desired
Interestingly, the Stoics do not place a high degree of value on respecting and being respected. Marcus Aurelius in particular might even say that respect should not be a goal at all. He writes “What then is the object of thy desire? To be praised? No. To be admired by those who are not worthy of admiration? No.” And again: “Constantly observe who those are whose approbation thou wishest to have, and what ruling principles they possess… neither wilt thou want their approbation, if thou lookest to the sources of their opinions and appetites.”
Seneca puts it this way: “What need is there to be admired by those whom you admire less than yourself? The crowd is a fickle thing, as easily swayed to destroy as to exalt.” And again: “To be praised by the unworthy is as perilous as to be blamed by them; both spring from the same root of ignorance.” In other words, according to these favorite thinkers of mine, it is great folly to pursue the admiration of people whose own beliefs and behaviors are not admirable. If you gain their approval, you are doing something wrong. Nothing screams “I’ve made it!” like winning a popularity contest judged by fools. Now, you are just the chief of fools.
If you have no wish to emulate them, you should have no desire for their respect. The Stoics intuited what Scripture declares outright (Galatians 1:10 – Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God?)
Being respected should be no goal for you. At best, it is a by-product, an extra perk that is not guaranteed, for pursuing virtues that are far higher than itself. It is in fact equally likely that in pursuing a loftier goal, you will lose as much respect as you gain. For example, if pursuing the goal of being just, you will gain the respect of those who value justice. In equal measure, you will lose the respect of those who do not value justice and wish with all their hearts to escape it at any cost. The good police officer is hated and reviled by criminals, and loved and respected by law-abiding citizens. Everything you choose will elevate you in the admiration of those who also choose it, and lower you in the eyes of those who choose something else. By its nature, respect is on one side, rather than at the center of the social scale.
Therefore, listen carefully. To respect and be respected by all, you must choose all behavior.
This is not possible.
The likelihood that you really respect everyone, and are respected by everyone, has a probability of exactly zero on the basis of social physics. It’s like trying to serve everyone their favorite flavor of ice cream from the same carton, when half the population is lactose intolerant.
Coming up: In future parts, I plan to present to you a series of modern misuses of this tortured word, which the Orwellian Newspeak culture has foisted upon us via Nominal Conquest Fallacy.
1. Respect as Agreement – The Compelled Speech Edition
2. Respect as Envy – The Luxury Trap
3. Respect as Moral Equity – Erasing Better and Worse
4. Respect as Transference – Claiming all Virtues Because of One Mastery
Stay tuned, it’s going to be a disrespectful ride.
Please subscribe and support our work.
Key Words / Search Terms
Apostoic Venn Blogcast | Apostoic | Apostoic Venn | D.S. Cook | S.D. Davis | Christian Stoicism | Respect in Ruins | Respect for All | Respect as Virtue | Nominal Conquest Fallacy | Respect Definition | Marcus Aurelius on Admiration | Seneca on Praise | Fruits of the Spirit | Galatians 5 | Virtue and Respect | Compelled Respect | Orwellian Respect | Admiration for Virtue
Socials:
Blog: Apostoic – Christian Stoicism for a more contented life
X: @DSpencer_blog
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61584804386705
Instagram: @apostoic
Youtube: Apostoic – YouTube
Try our Logic Slap app, a meme weapon for destroying logical fallacies in internet debates: Available on Google Play Store! https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.apostoic.logicslap&pcampaignid=web_share
