Yes, and you respect those who earn it for something in particular about them, not a free-floating 'respect' with no cause or specific meaning. If it were not respect for something specific it would have no meaning. The respect you describe does.

I understand that an individual is supposed to earn your respect. I hold many individuals with respect due to their labor.
Any man who works for his wage, strives for his happiness and with logic has my respect. these are the qualities that are desired in man.

We know what humans are because we have an objective concept of 'human' based on categorizing in terms of essentials. The meaning of a concept is everything it refers to. The knowledge obtained about humans in accordance with our rational nature pertains to all humans, everything subsumed by the concept. All concepts refer to all instances of their referents in the present, past, and future. Knowledge is based on the past -- because our experiences and validations have been in the past -- it not restricted to be only about the past.

If knowledge were only about the past, we would have no knowledge, including all of science -- which is the result of believing on faith. The fact that man's knowledge is not infallible is the reason why the method of observation and logic is required to exercise reason. Knowledge is not automatic, it requires strict adherence to rules of knowing, which both faith and skepticism deny and prohibit. The comparison is shown in the constant retreat of religion before the advances of science.

The claims by advocates of faith that knowledge can only be about the past illustrates how skepticism and faith are two sides of the same coin: Faith, with its belief in the arbitrary, leads to skepticism in the wake of its cognitive wreckage. Skepticism denies any means of knowing, leaving faith as the only way to try to stumble through the rubble of what is left of the intellect. Both are an attempt to deny the means of human knowledge through reason exercised by the method of logic,attempting to replace it with subjectivism.

I did not equate respect with "utility" and reject your notion of intrinsic value without regard to objective assessment. Values are objective not intrinsic, which is mysticism, and not subjective, including any form of utilitarianism or pragmatism.

Knowledge does not apply "only to the past - never to the future". Knowing what is by its nature is not "speculation" and not "faith". Faith is not about what "may be", it is belief without evidence. We know what humans are.

We'll just agree to disagree. I simply can't equate respect with utility and that is your selected definition of respect. To me, respect comes from being human and one may lose respect when one acts contrary to their nature - contrary to that potential that is inimical in every human being.

"The human potential is known from our nature as rational beings."

Potential always refers to an unrealized future and never a known state. If one claims they know the end state of any human being or the human race in aggregate, one is professing that they possess either a time machine or supernatural capabilities. Would you care to rephrase this or explain further what you mean by this?

"That is based on empirical, conceptual knowledge of the human species, not faith."

Knowledge applies only to the past - never the future. To assert that one can know (not merely speculate) regarding the future is to claim the possibility of prophets and/or the supernatural. Again, faith deals with that which may be but for which there may be little or no current evidence. To act based on potential is to exercise faith.

"The existence of potential does not mean that it will ever be actualized at all."

I agree, but this stands very much at odds with your previous statement which asserts a knowledge of the future. To someone who knows, potential evaporates into what is and what is not.

"I still have to urge you to think more carefully and deeply."

Urge away. The entire point of this forum is to encourage thinking - but I would caution confusing agreement with "thinking". So far, your argument seems to center on a personal decision not to accept any intrinsic value in other human beings. I simply disagree with that posture and from that stems our disagreement. I have cited my reasons and the outcomes I believe stem from such a view. Those outcomes have not been disputed and until they do they carry considerable weight in my decision-making process.

Regarding the scenario, however, why do you choose to expend time and energy and face the repercussions of your missed appointment when you have no information other than the fact that it is another person? There has been no demonstration of extrinsic value by the other person.

I stand corrected then.

Just for the record: I did not vote you down. Someone else did.

A person is respected for doing or being something good out of his choices and actions, not because he happens to be a human being. Valuing the capacity of a human being for being human does not say what any person has made of himself, and neither does comparing him to a snail.

A person has rights whether or not he has earned respect.

The human potential is known from our nature as rational beings. That is based on empirical, conceptual knowledge of the human species, not faith. Knowledge of a potential does not mean that any particular person will achieve what he is capable of. The existence of potential does not mean that it will ever be actualized at all. Faith is leaping to the conclusion that a person has or will without evidence.

In my opinion, value is entirely dependent on the evaluator and his philosophy. I do not recognize "intrinsic" values. The only way they can exist is by imposition of an authority, pretending to know better what is valuable to me than I do myself. Only I can allow somebody else to teach me about some values which I have not recognized as such. I do not see a good reason to give you that permission.

I call 911 and then the "appointment", to say I will be late. Then wait until emergency crew arrives. I have zero resuscitation skills and no protection against infection.

I still have to urge you to think more carefully and deeply.

"Human being are not all above average."

When compared to each other, perhaps. But that is a different comparison than to compare man to rocks, trees, or snails. And in comparison to every other type of life on this planet, human beings are exceptional. We are a huge cut above everything else on this planet. That was my point.

You want to compare one human being to another in order to determine whether or not someone is worthy of your "respect". I simply point out that this has nothing to do with respect and everything to do with utility. You want to tie utility to respect through such a comparison. I'm simply pointing out that in doing so one creates an arbitrary and wholly-subjective value of humankind. To me, that is an incredibly dangerous road because it leads to dehumanization. It enables the rationalization that because someone is not the kind of human being I see as the ideal that I can treat them differently. It denies the notion of universal human rights - which originate not from utility, but from humanity itself.

"Recognizing the potential of man is not faith"

Faith is a belief in something that can not be verified at the present. Potential (non-electrical that is) is entirely a measurement or expression of faith because it relies on events that have not yet taken place. Since potential can not rely on evidence or proof, what other term would you use if not faith?

Human being are not all above average. We are not talking about snails. That is not the standard for respect. We are talking about human accomplishment in character, ability, intelligence or any other human potential that one can respect in some degree to the extent a person achieves it. We do not respect an individual because he is not a snail.

Recognizing the potential of man is not faith

"Suffice it say, I think you have to think through more thoroughly these concepts and their relationships before you can express them in writing."

Just say what you really meant: that because I express an opinion you disagree with, you think I shouldn't voice it. Then when I present a hypothetical that directly addresses the question at hand but poses a difficult moral question, I get down-voted without even a reply. -1 to you, too.

So you're going to downvote me for answering your question because you don't like my answer. I rest my case.

"Respect means something beyond the average or potential."

Human beings are beyond the average. They are the only creatures on this planet with independent will. They are the only creatures who have innate rights and those rights do not come by virtue of anything they have done, but simply by being a human. We are exceptional. One does not merit rights through action, but simply by existing. Character, etc., can certainly enhance or detract from one's appeal to others, I agree. But I still maintain that because one is identifying another person as human there is no such thing as a neutral attitude because one has already associated many value judgments about humanity with one's self. The only way one can say that they view others with no outlook whatsoever is to deny their own observation that the other is a person like themselves. I do not believe there exists a third "neutral" option.

"There is reason to treat people you don't know civilly to foster a benevolent society, realizing that they have the potential for goodness or greatness and encouraging it."

I completely agree, I'm just really surprised to hear it from you because this is strictly a position of faith - not evidence.

"Granting an unearned respect, without knowing what a person is, is an act of faith..."

Making any kind of judgement about another person without knowing them is an act of faith (or prejudice), I completely agree, but you would not say the same thing about a dog or a rock or a tree. Why? Because they don't have the potential to do great things - or terrible things. Only human beings have self-determination. Are there religions and philosophies who preach that others who are not part of their respective groups are not "human" and therefore do not deserve respect? Absolutely. I would argue that the vast majority of them do this such as Islam, Black Lives Matter, and socialism. Only a very few such as Objectivism and Christianity and the fundamental establishment of this nation hold that every human is equal before the law. What is of particular note, however, is that it is their station as human beings that determines their rights - not their deeds. We can initially view someone with the respect due towards another human being with great potential to do wonderful things, or we can initially view another with the contempt that they will never measure up to our standards.

Anyway, thanks for the rational discussion.

I agree. That is why they have to be doing the right thing before they get the respect. If they continue in a positive way, the respect continues.
I might not have been very clear.

Thanks.

Respect is for something specific and positive about a person. It should not be granted without reason as a "starting point". Ayn Rand explained her reverence for man in terms of man's potential at his best, not as a collectivist notion revering everyone. See the quote on this same page at https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...

I agree.
I do have to admit: how we respect others and others respect us is kind of complex if you think about it too much.
I begin by respecting individuals unless they have done something that indicates they have not deserved my respect. It is a quick initial judgement. Part of that judgement is determined by using rational, objective observations and asking if they are doing the right thing (yes or no) in accordance with objectivism. If it is a no, they have to earn the respect and if it is a yes, the respect is assumed until proven otherwise.
Likewise for myself. I try to do the right thing to make the world a better place. I sometimes falter a bit and probably have to earn the respect of others as I am sure I do not always make that initial good impression. I hope that people respect me, but I know I don't do things for reverence. I do good for the sake of doing so and enter into mutually beneficial relationships or contracts with people for my own gain and the gain of mankind in the process. I respect those who do the same thing.
I do have a lot of respect (deep respect) for many people, the good things they do and for the contributions they make to advance the world into the future, but am not too sure I revere them. Where does one draw the line? That is hard, if not impossible, to pinpoint and up to the individual to determine.
The entitlement complex drives me crazy. As Rand said: "Depraved is the man without purpose."
We have to earn our way and charity should not be asked for. People should not feel obligated or coerced to do acts of charity. Many atheist objectivists are quite charitable just because they want to be, and not for reward or fear of punishment.
I think of the people John Galt invited to his colony in the mountains and extrapolate that to society. I estimate that we rely on about fifteen to twenty percent (give or take) of the population to advance us into the future. The rest of the population makes up the rest. I would love to think I might be in the upper fifteen to twenty percent but am doubtful. All I can do is try my best to be one of them. I respect others who at leas try. I do have contempt for those who do not try and those who would make the world worse.

Sorry for the ramble. I hope it makes sense.

Opposing a negative like dogma isn't enough. You have to know what you are for. Pursuing reason and understanding avoids becoming a dogmatist. It's not a matter of starting with strong "belief" without regard to means and then wondering if you have a problem to get out of. If you always emphasize reason you can always correct mistakes, recognizing it as crucial to your own intellectual state and development. Malcontents running around subjectively accusing Objectivism as "dogma" while dogmatically claiming any denial by the targets is their proof have their own problem of dogma.

When we don't know what someone is we don't know if he is worthy of respect. Respect means something beyond the average or potential. Respect is granted for some particular positive attribute, including broad good character, intelligence, competence, or ability. Such an evaluation must be earned.

Likewise there must be evidence before denouncing him with contempt. There is no reason to "default" to either. It is a false alternative.

There is reason to treat people you don't know civilly to foster a benevolent society, realizing that they have the potential for goodness or greatness and encouraging it.

Granting an unearned respect, without knowing what a person is, is an act of faith, illustrated by the injustice and rote religious collectivism demanding to love everyone as a duty, prohibiting independent thought and judgment.

"Judge and be prepared to be judged."

The previous "generation of teachers", including Ayn Rand, did not present "Objectivism as a rationalization for despising others" or "demonstrating superiority over others' stupidity" either.

Of course it should not have Objectivism in its name. But Shermer is worse. He is attacking Objectivism with rationalistic polemics as if it were Objectivism. He's a vile smear artist.

I recently finished Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. It talked about how humans and human-like creatures had mythology going back through pre-history. The myths, he said, did the job of allowing groups larger than families to work together.
He said many Enlightenment ideas are just our mythology. I said "no!" to the book. I think understanding the world using models based on experiment and respecting people's right to be left are just things we discovered, not myths or dogma. But I know it's hard to pull yourself out of it. Believers of dogma think they've found the truth. So it has me thinking.
I still don't see the ideas in the 3 Rand books I've read as promoting dogma. It's more about being willing to ignore dogma.

Thanks for the detailed reply. It sounds like DO is far enough from Objectivism that it should not have Objectivism in its name.

"When one observes another human being, at first, all one recognizes is a rational animal with a free will."

In other words, a human being. THAT is the very first value judgement. It can not be simply skipped over or ignored. The question is whether the intrinsic value of a human lies in their age, health, strength, sex appeal, etc. or in the fact that they are human in the first place.

"Then, with closer look and the first interactions, comes evaluating intelligence, knowledge and character. ..."

I am not arguing that people are equal in capability. That is not the case at all. Neither am I evaluating the potential suitability of another person for a specific task - whether that be employment or spouse. Those are absolutely going to be subjective evaluations based on the strengths and weaknesses of that person in relation to the values an individual has set as "desirable". What I am arguing is that those are secondary judgments: judgments of fitness within an application rather than an original identification of personhood with its inherent worth.

Yes, one's respect for another can grow as a result of familiarity, etc. I am not arguing against that at all. What I am questioning is the assertion that in assaying another human being one can start out with a "neutral" respect. That is asserting that a person is no different than a rock, a tree, or any other object lacking self-will/self-determination. What more, it asserts that this other person has no relationship or similarity to one's self.

["The only problem is that if worth is only in the eye of the beholder, from whence does a person derive their own worth?" (mine)]
"The self worth comes from achievement in creating objective values and from positive evaluations from people whom one respects highly." (your response)

I don't know if you realize it, but both your examples are of subjective rather than intrinsic worth and both examples rely entirely upon subjective human valuation of fitness. Your examples prove my point.


Here's a hypothetical for consideration in light of this question:

You are walking along the road one day and come across a figure on the side of the road. Upon closer inspection, you realize that it is a person, but that this individual is non-responsive and appears to have suffered serious injury. From the chill in the air, you can see a faint mist indicating that they are breathing. You have an appointment that you will be late to if you stop.

What do you do and why?