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 off, 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 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) claims 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. He attempted to define 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.
But what is virtue, biblically speaking? It is not vague niceness or self-actualization. Scripture presents virtue as nothing short of the immutable characteristics of God himself. To the degree that we can attain it, it is the character of Christ being formed within us by the working of the Holy Spirit. The fruits of that Spirit are laid out clearly in Galatians: Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. It is fearing God more than man (Proverbs 29:25), honoring others as fellow image-bearers while refusing to call evil good (Isaiah 5:20). Virtue is not earned by mere existence; it is cultivated through obedience to God’s design, moral law, prescribed repentance, and the Spirit’s work. Respect ought to respond to that reflected glory of God, not to some default position as objects at rest.
Modernity, though, has other ideas. “Respect for all” now often takes the shape of unconditional affirmation, regardless of behavior or belief, and certainly irrespective of virtue. It has become something not earned, but owed on the basis of mere existence as a breathing being. “Congratulations, you have a pulse! Here’s your participation trophy in human dignity.” It has become a demand: respect me, my choices, my words, my actions, my chosen identity, or you’re the bad guy. 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. 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. Because 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 when half of the population is lactose intolerant and the other half only wants frozen yogurt.
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.
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.
Nominal Conquest Fallacy explained here:
Nominal Conquest Fallacy – Apostoic
Key Words / Search Terms
Respect in Ruins | Respect Trap | respect for all | why respect feels like a lie | Christian Stoicism | Stoic view on respect | Marcus Aurelius on admiration | Seneca on praise | Nominal Conquest Fallacy | Orwellian Newspeak | respect as virtue | admiration for virtue | respect vs approval | unconditional respect | respect earned not owed | virtue and respect | Galatians on virtue | pursuing approval of God | cognitive dissonance respect | respect as social virtue signal | compelled speech | modern misuse of respect | biblical virtue | fruits of the Spirit | fearing God over man | rejecting unconditional affirmation
More Articles For You
Stay In Your Three-Foot World – Apostoic
Jerry and Jankerson Make a Dollar – Apostoic
Socials:
Blog: https://apostoic.com
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!
Drop a penny in the tip jar. This blog is entirely reader-funded.
Leave a Reply