"Respect"

Respect is a word that has quite a history and over those years of use there are nuances of difference in meaning.  However, which ever period one chooses to view the outcome is the same.  Respect is a matter of how one person treats another.  As to definition consider the following.

Respect is from the Latin respectus and literally means "the act of looking back at one." Included is the notions of "look back at, regard, consider,"  which comes from re- "back" + specere "look at" The verb is from the mid 1500s and means to "treat with deferential regard or esteem."  (adapted from definition found at http://www.etymonline.com/abbr.php) 

Said another way respect is to "treat with reverent or courteous regard—to value, hold in esteem, or high regard.”  In other words, it is a relationship word. 

Some 4,500-6,000 years earlier the Hebrew Language uses the word in the sense of  “to lift” or we would say “to lift up”one's regard for a person or a people.  Then the Greeks came along and added the dimension of feeling and their word meant “to feel respect for.”  Feeling or not, it speaks to the quality of relationship. 

There are it seems to me two applications of the word.

First, it describes how we treat another person.  An example would be in the following.  She treated her the older woman with respect as she listened to her story for the tenth time.  Another way of saying it is that she had a respectful demeanor.

Recently I read the remarks by a young woman by the name of Sara as she wrote of respect.  She works in a local court system and writes about her contact with those who have run afoul of the Law.

"I realized...that the respect I show these people isn't because they have necessarily earned it or deserve it but because there is also an Ethic of Respect.  That Ethic of Respect comes from a decision to intentionally obey the rules of conduct put into place by something greater than just my feelings."

She went on to say, "I don't always respect every customer I come into contact with but I always show them respect..."

Respect is a small gift that each can easily afford to tailor made and then give to another.  One never knows the outcome of such a gift.  It may well be an instrument of change in the life of another.

Second, there is respect as in how we react within.  An example would be the reaction we might have to another who is consistent of character.  One who no matter the winds or tides stays to the course.  It is to be the genuine living out of character qualities.  Such is found in statements as for instance “I respect your honesty.”  We might add other words such as, integrity, punctuality, sensitivity, boldness, determination, dependability, faith, and many others.

Notice that in both cases it does not mean that one has to even like or agree with the person respected.  There can be great respect between people who have different presuppositions about an issue and thus have diametrically opposing viewpoints as they interact based upon the previous list of words and others like them.  Generally speaking respect between even enemies can be maintained when both sides function in not so much a moral but in an ethical manner.

The benefit is that when a person treats even people one does not necessarily like nor gravitate toward, with respect, there is a benefit that will accrue.  Such a benefit may not be readily apparent but more than one person has been "bailed out" by a person who while they disagree with, has received their respect.

"The Foundations of Truth and Reality" CT1

QUESTIONS:  Upon what foundation does one build his truth claims?  Asked another way, what is the origin of truth?  How reliable is that origin and thus the foundation?  If the foundation is not sound, can the truth system built upon that foundation be sound?

Within the various cultures, sub-cultures, social groups, right down to the individual there is a tension which has to do with the origin and foundation of reality or as we might say, the bottom line truth.  The position one takes in the aforementioned question sets the stage for the following material.

The discussion may we be summed up in the last question.  The foundational presuppositions upon which a person builds his  truth systems will determine the integrity, validity, and veracity of that system.

The initial question is this.  Is truth’s origin external or internal?  That is does the origin and thus the authority for truth lay in that which is external to the individual, social group, sub-culture, or culture or does it lay within.  Among the outcomes if truth is internal to those things mentioned are the following two.

First, internal truth tend to divide.  For example if one takes the position that his truth comes as a result of  race, religion, ethnicity, sub-culture etc. then what problems may come when those truth convictions encounter truth conviction from other races, religions, etc.

Second, internal truth can be destructive.  Since it is an internal truth it is far more likely to include and even give license for bias, discrimination, and beliefs that are destructive to others.

There is however, another and in my view more reliable foundation upon which one can construct his system of truth.  It is the case when truth is external to all that has been discussed so far.

Ethical truth can only exist when it's authority and origin is external to,

• The individual
• The culture
• The sub-culture
• The social situation

The outcome is an ethical truth which is universal and objective and points to transcendence and thus transcendent truth.   Universal in that it applies to all peoples of all times.  Objective in that it is not influenced nor changed by circumstances.  Transcendent in that it has its origin from the Divine.

Open or closed values system:  As an aside there is as a result of a direct or tacit decision as to the openness or closedness of the value system in which we live. Either we live in a  closed or open ethical/moral environment.

The one who contends for ethical truth generally directly or tacitly believes that ethical values are only possible because the value systems that we recognize are open systems with the Divine as continually contributing to the processes involved.  The one who contends for moral truth either directly or tacitly believes in a closed system without the involvement of the Divine.

Ethical/Moral confusion:  Looking thus at the notion of ethics being beyond the situation makes a phrase such as situational ethics an inconsistency and only possible as the meaning of ethics and morals has been blurred to the point that they have become synonyms.  Truth is that taking an historical definition of these words into account yields the point that these are actually contradictory terms since the existence and reality of ethical truth transcend any and all situations.

Returning then to the discussion of internal truth, consider the next few points.

Moral truth only reflects only the mores of a particular culture.  There is the view of truth and thus reality that its origin is internal to the culture.  The outcome is that such truth--such moral  truth has its origins and is validated by the opinion and action of the culture.  That is to say that if at least 51% of the culture believes some notion or participates in some practice, then those things are considered validated as moral truth.  In this case, societal mores are taken to be authoritative.

An example might be what constitutes larceny.  If 51% of a given culture holds that a person stealing less than  a prescribed amount is in fact not larceny then such would be a moral standard or truth prescribed by that culture.  Of course the outcome would be that the behavior of the Law would be to conform to that moral standard. 

Exclusive and/or private truth is another view of truth.  Those who hold this notion believe that they are in possession of special or truth exclusive to them or their group.  In some cases there is limited access and in others it is made available to others.

The behavioral outcome is that for some there comes a notions of superiority since they have been vested with this special truth.  The can be an attendant license to behave on a level which is not consistent with ethical or even moral truth.  This may be seen in some religions whose members have been taught that they may lie or even kill in order to achieve the greater good as defined by their beliefs.

Self truth.  Those who hold this position believe that the individual is the origin of truth.  Some even postulate that there is within all an inner light of some sort that reveals to them truth.  Such belief is most often tailor made to their personality and their moral convictions.  When people employ the phrase, "My god would never..." and then they go on to list their agenda they are reflecting this notion of self revelation of truth.  

The problem is that such people seldom if ever create a god that is realistic.  In fact, most often they create a god that does not challenge nor stress their own level of self-centeredness.

QUESTION:  What is the outcome for a culture that seeks to embrace and even force the acceptance of these and other truth systems?

There is no common basis for deciding truth.


For example the person who holds ethical truth, who then relies upon an external authority, might then refer to the authority of Scripture or in some cases the authority of church tradition as taught and practiced throughout history.

Though there may be some commonality with those who hold moral truth, at some point there will be a departure.  For the reasons this is so refer to the discussion in the articles, "Cultural and Personal Chaos" and "Checking the Descent into Unethical Chaos."

There cannot be an agreed upon standard of authority.


With differing truth convictions the standards for deciding reliable authority differ.  As previously mentioned one such authority is found in "I feel that...."  Others rely upon externals either culture or transcendent universal authority.  Factor in the closed /open values systems argument.  Again there is a great potential for division and as well disconnect when arguments are tendered based upon such differing views of the origins of truth and the place of the Divine in those views.


There can be no agreement as to correct and incorrect action

As noted above the ethicist argues that there are objective universal truths, by most considered to be transcendent which establish and maintain the dividing line between right and wrong.  Of course the moralist counters with the notion that the difference between right and wrong are established based upon cultural mores.  Again the individualist would discount both and establish right and wrong based upon standards that might well be unique to him.

There is not enough in common to enjoy a common faith experience nor expression




SUMMARY/CLOSING THOUGHTS:  Mankind has been given the freedom to choose and so each person must decide for himself whether he believes that truth is external to himself or is it the light within.  Further he has been vested with the authority to make a choice in the matter.  As well he has been vested with the power to decide whether he accepts an open or closed values environment.

If all is internal to the entities mentioned above, what can the person who hold such a conviction offer as validating proof and thus confirmation that it indeed is a genuine truth, one upon which one might stake his life.  How might such a person without relying upon personal feelings and/or cultural mores validate his truth claims.  If the self is considered the ultimate authority, then it is to the self that one must answer self as the ultimate authority.

If a person decides that truth is external, then the decision has to be made as to how external. Is such truth then to be the product of society, sub-culture, ethnic group, or of a transcendent God?  If one stops his view at society or any of the other moral externals then it is as previously noted, that entity, say society must be trusted to not only provides the origin and foundation of truth but also provides the ultimate authority for action to include the determination of right from wrong and sanctions associated with such.

Finally, the one who hold that there is universal, objective, transcendent truth views God to be the ultimate authority.  Responsibility for rest with Him for being the final and ultimate arbitrator of right and wrong.  While societal systems and cultural system may exist and serve to keep order and provide safety, as to ethical truth and such sanctions as come from disobeying same God is the final and ultimate authority to which one must give account for his rights and wrongs.

Each person who draws a breath of life has been vested with the power to choose who or what provides his ethical/moral compass but what he has no control over is the outcome of that choice!

"Ethical Truth vs. Moral Truth Revisited"

Truth claims!

• Is it possible that one can find safety and security without a validation of belief?
• How is it that one can know that their beliefs are in fact true?  
• What claims of validity can one offer as proof to themselves and to others?  
• Is there confirmation and thus confidence because of the logic in their truth claim?  

Certainly there are many who would validate one's pathway to truth.  For example those who hold a  Judeo-Christian ethical view of life believe with one another that there is such a thing as Divine revelation.

Then there are those who hold a  Modernist moral view of life who would agree that there is in fact this body of "stuff" that can be labeled as "truth."  They may disagree on what is in that collection of "stuff" and they may disagree how one arrives at what goes in that collection of "stuff" but they would agree that there is "stuff" called truth.

So then both the Judeo-Christian thinker and the Modernist thinker would agree that there is some sort of truth.  They may disagree as to pathway to, what qualifies as, the characteristics of, but not at the notion of there being  some "stuff" we call truth!

Then too the Modernist thinker would agree with his fellows about "truth" in at least one respect.  They both would postulate that truth is discovered through human effort.  That is discovered through one's rational process, scientific discovery, collective opinion,  cultural behavior norms etc.

Since such "truth" as may be discovered is relative not universal, subjective not objective, etc. there is the potential for conflict within the Modernist position.  In other words, one man's "fact" might be another man's "fallacy" or "fiction."  Even so they would agree on the validity of there being a pathways (different as they might be) to their particular set of "stuff" they call truth.

However,  the question of logic must be introduced into the discussion.  In other words, if a generality fails to be logical in content and process, then more than likely it leads to an invalid position.  Such logic would go on to say that if it can be proven that there is at least one exception, one erroneous element, or at least one inconsistency to the position held, then the table is set for two other questions.

They are these.  First, has not the basic generality been invalidated by one or more of the things just mentioned.  Second, since the door is now open to exceptions, error, and/or inconsistency, how many other problems might there be?

Are you with me so far?

Remember now the Modernist makes the claim that there are no universal truths and in fact all truth is man discovered and is relative even unique to time, culture, the individual, etc.

So here is the dilemma  Is not the proposition that there is no universal truth in and of itself a generality and thus a universal truth?  If one accepts such to be so, then the Modernist has just made a "logic" hole in his no universal truth claim.  (We might at this point ask of other problems with their "stuff" called truth?)

That then leads to another question.  How many other universal truths might be lurking about within his argument or perhaps out there just outside his consciousness?  Oh by the way, the proposition of there being no universal truth when argued by the Modernist shares characteristics with ethical truth, that is it is held to apply across time and culture etc.  It is held to apply no matter the situation or the individual.

Should not those who hold this position "fess up" and admit that in at least one instance they hold a universal objective truth!  If they do of course they open the door to there being other universal truth.

"Nice argument," one may say.  "Don't believe it but, nice argument."  Well, other posts will continue the discussion.  In the mean time maybe the following is worth thinking about.

Could it be that there not being universal objective truth leaves the individual cut loose form the very things that allow him confidence in the content and processes of this thought life which then has implications for his actions?.  Could it be that cutting the individual's moorings from universal objective truth has a debilitating effect upon the relationships that one has with himself and thus others?  Personally, I am convinced it is so!