Answer: Do you view them as equals until they demonstrate otherwise (respect) or do you force them to prove that they fit your definition of human first (contempt)?

"One has placed that new object - that new person - in the same class as one's self with similar virtues, characteristics, and capabilities. In that instant one has already assigned value of equal portion to one's self. That is why it is impossible to start from a position of no value."
When one observes another human being, at first, all one recognizes is a rational animal with a free will. Immediately one then starts evaluating. How old, how healthy, how strong, if of opposite sex, perhaps the sex appeal. Then, with closer look and the first interactions, comes evaluating intelligence, knowledge and character. Ever heard about "importance of first impressions"? Then and only then can come beginnings of respect or contempt. Based on first hand evidence.

"The evaluation that a human being has no "demonstrated" value is completely a subjective judgment arbitrarily assuming the judge as some kind of supreme authority."
Why do you think people write resumes and seek recommendations from others who know them before going to an interview for a job opening? Positive evaluations and respect have to be EARNED.

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

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

How can you have either respect or contempt for someone you do not know at all?
EDIT: corrected a typo

"We give people the benefit of the doubt."

Doubt is only present where evidence has not been produced to lead to judgement. If the true standard of worth is only based on demonstrated value, why would our behavior not default towards skepticism rather than respect?

"We treat them with benevolence and respectfully based on their potential as human beings."

Potential is not the same as evidence. If we treat someone based on their potential, aren't we exercising... faith?

No, identifying a person as a human being does not tell you what his character is and does not warrant respecting it. We give people the benefit of the doubt, normally treat them civilly, and respect their rights. We treat them with benevolence and respectfully based on their potential as human beings. That is neither contempt nor granting respect for whatever they are in particular.

As soon as one identifies an object, has not that one already associated with that object some utility or use? Therefore as soon as one identifies the subject of observation as a "person" or "human being" one has already attached to that identification the notions of inherent value and worth, including the unique distinction of self-ownership, self-determination, rights, and a very different character than other (non-sentient) items. One has placed that new object - that new person - in the same class as one's self with similar virtues, characteristics, and capabilities. In that instant one has already assigned value of equal portion to one's self. That is why it is impossible to start from a position of no value.

The real question is what do we do after that identification is made. Do we pretend within ourselves that this other person has not really demonstrated that they are a person at all - placing ourselves as arbiters of human value? That is contempt. The evaluation that a human being has no "demonstrated" value is completely a subjective judgment arbitrarily assuming the judge as some kind of supreme authority. The only problem is that if worth is only in the eye of the beholder, from whence does a person derive their own worth? They can not. The whole system becomes a cyclical morass of subjective judgement with no true value to be had!

The only solution lies in admitting that human beings have innate value: value that we as other human beings can choose to acknowledge or respect - or that we can attempt to rationalize as not existing until we approve it. Rationalization, however, is nothing more than an internal power play - an attempt to tell ourselves that we can control what in reality is completely beyond our control. If we acknowledge that coercion of another person is verboten, are we not acknowledging that (regardless of what we think or rationalize) the innate and inherent quality of being human by its very nature places at least one value judgement completely outside of our authority to debate? I contend it does.

QED

Not respecting someone who has not or not yet earned it is not a "middle ground". It has nothing to do with assuming contempt. It is a positive evaluation based on evidence.

I am not a "prime example" of any of his fantasies. Esceptico is a mud-slinging smear artist who does not belong on this forum. He has a long record of this.

Objectivism is a dogma. Saying it isn't is saying "my shit doesn't stink."

If someone must "earn" respect, one automatically places that other in a position different to the stature or position in which one sees one's self. Thus there is no middle ground between respect and contempt - no fence or gray area. Respect is a comparison of equals. Contempt is a comparison of inferiority/superiority. The only way one can claim that there is a middle ground is if one claims that same middle ground of themselves - which is impossible.

And I do not claim that respect is the same as approval. I can choose to respect someone for who they could be regardless of what they have done that I disapprove of.

I think your syllogism is in error. For example, a true believer (a person who strictly, zealously, and unquestioningly maintains the beliefs and rituals of a particular religion; (in extended use) an ardent or unfailingly loyal supporter of a person, group, cause, etc.) can have dogma (an inflexible principle or set of principles laid down by an authority), but dogma cannot have a true believer.

I think you need to restate your proposition before I could answer it.

In any event, that is not exactly what I am saying. I was answering the question posed. Let me expand upon it.

Objectivism seems to have two fundamental lines of belief: dogmatic and open. I will only mention the dogmatic aspect here because that is the thrust of the original question posed.

A Dogmatic Objectivist (DO) is a person who thinks he is right and everyone else is wrong. For the DOs, Objectivism isn’t about self-development, but about adhering to a set of rigid beliefs and following the rules laid down by Objectivist authorities.

In doing so, the DOs feel compelled to defend the approved beliefs against anyone who dares to question them, asserting their “truth” over other people’s, attacking the others personally instead of intellectually. For a DO, the fact other people have different beliefs as a personal affront to the DO, since it implies the possibility their own belief(s) may not be true.

In the process a DO feels the driving need to convince other people they’re wrong and use ad hominem argument at all levels so the Dos can thereby prove to themselves they are right.

Perhaps dogmatic Objectivism stems from a psychological need for group identity and belonging, together with a need for certainty and meaning. Who knows? But there does appear to be an impulse in human beings to define ourselves, whether it’s as an Objectivist, Christian, or a Yankees fan.

Whatever the root, I believe dogmatic anything is dangerous because it ends intellectual investigation, thus destroying progress, and creates an in-out group mentality, thus destroying civility. One need look no further than posts in this thread to see current examples of this, and the post below (or most his posts) by ewv is a prime illustration.

My more than half century experience as an Objectivist with DOs reveals they withdraw empathy and morality from other groups, see “others” as inferior, ignorant and immoral and treat others as enemies at a the most trivial difference, or even if the “other” simply asks a question. Objectivism is supposed to be about individualism, but DOs view all “other” groups (or even individuals) as general entities, rather than as separate individuals.

Until the dogmatic attitude changes, I see Objectivism as the proverbial flash in the intellectual pan with its current flame growing ever smaller.

Michael Shermer, in his book “Why People Believe Weird Things,” has a chapter entitled “The Unlikeliest Cult” in which he deals with Ayn Rand, Objectivism and the Cult of Personality. I recommend the entire book, but I have seen this chapter on the internet in PDF if you don’t want to buy the book.

Toohey's mentality was not a matter of some technical issue that most people don't think about because they don't know the subject. Rejecting Toohey with disdain doesn't mean one should wallow in it. Roark "truly didn't think about it" -- after seeing that Toohey wasn't worth focusing on.

Requiring that respect be earned does not mean beginning with contempt. It has nothing to do with an "inherent bias and prejudice against others", not respecting the rule of law, or any other "destructive attitudes".

I agree that respect for someone as an individual is different than respect for their rights, but unlike you, I believe that we must start with respect for other individuals because if we do not, we instead begin with contempt for others. That position establishes an inherent bias and prejudice against others and results not in respect for the rule of law, but either a superiority complex where they feel they are better than others or an entitlement complex where they believe that because they are inferior that they deserve compensation. I think that is a very destructive set of attitudes to encourage.

Indeed.

OK. Looks like she explained it well.

He is constantly denigrating and smearing Ayn Rand and those who agree with her as "true believers" and more. It isn't so much a fallacy of deduction as a sweeping false premise dogmatically pronounced with tiresome repetition.

I wasn't suggesting plagiarism, so much as pointing out that her teachings were derived from various sources...the philosopher Aristotle being a major contributor.

Respect for someone is not the same as respect for his rights. Everyone has rights by virtue of his nature as human, but not everyone deserves respect, let alone reverence. However you evaluate someone's character as worthy of respect or not, he still has rights unless he forfeits them through his own criminal actions.

The formulation was hers as shorthand for the law of identity, based on Aristotle's principle of non-contradiction.

What do you mean by an opposition of those who suggest they understand Ayn Rand versus showing "reverence towards their fellow man". What is an example?

Why do you think that we should respect others regardless of what they are? Why would that be morally idealistic?

"Kill reverence and you've killed the hero in man" was a statement by the villain Ellsworth Toohey in The Fountainhead -- who was out to kill heroism and recognition of it. It didn't mean that Ayn Rand thought that everyone is a hero regardless of what he does with his life. Toohey was an egalitarian nihilist out to kill the best in man and heroism as such.

For what Ayn Rand meant by reverence for man see the quote from her journals elsewhere on this page at https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...

The novels show her philosophy in action, but to understand the principles you have to read the non-fiction. You aren't supposed to be a "devout follower" or a "follower" at all; that is not the alternative to "novice". You should strive to understand what is true and why.

Every individual must earn your respect. But when Ayn Rand spoke of reverence for man she meant for man's nature at its highest potential, not that everyone must be revered and respected regardless of what he is, which would be collectivism.

She wrote in her in journals while writing Atlas Shrugged:

"[I]t is proper for a creator to be optimistic, in the deepest, most basic sense, since the creator [her heroes] believes in a benevolent universe and functions on that premise. But it is an error to extend that optimism to other specific men. First, it's not necessary, the creator's life and the nature of the universe do not require it, his life does not depend on others. Second, man is a being with free will; therefore, each man is potentially good or evil, and it's up to him to decide by his own reasoning mind which he wants to be; the decision will affect only him; it is not (and should not be) the primary concern of any other human being. Therefore, while a creator does and must worship Man (which is reverence for his own highest potentiality), he must not make the mistake of thinking that this means the necessity to worship Mankind (as a collective); these are two entirely different conceptions with diametrically opposed consequences. Man, at his highest potentiality, is realized and fulfilled with each creator himself, and within such other men as he finds around him who live up to that idea. This is all that's necessary.

Whether the creator is alone, or finds only a handful of others like him, or is among the majority of mankind, is of no importance or consequence whatever; numbers have nothing to do with it; he alone or he and a few others like him are mankind, in the proper sense of being the proof of what man actually is, man at his best, the essential man, man at his highest possibility. (The rational being who acts according to his nature.)

It should not matter to a creator whether anyone or a million or all the men around him fall short of the ideal of Man; let him live up to that ideal himself; this is all the "optimism" about Man that he needs. But this is a hard and subtle thing to realize—and it would be natural for Dagny always to make the mistake of believing others are better than they really are (or will become better, or she will teach them to become better) and to be tied to the world by that hope.

I didn't take that as disdain. I took it to mean he truly didn't think about it, not like in "I refuse to think about you," but rather he just wasn't into it. I recently drove from a mild climate to Wisconsin, and I was fascinated how the temperate gauge decreased nearly monotonically on the trip. Was there some hysteresis in the readout? Did the sensor have a high thermal mass? I kept wondering aloud to my wife, who is an attorney not an engineer, if the temperature gradient really was monotonic. I would expect a decline with Gaussian noise on it. Like Roark, though, my wife just didn't think about it.