One day, a young boy, an old man, and a donkey were traveling along the road together. The young boy rode the donkey while the old man walked beside him, and as they passed through a village, they heard people talking amongst each other, “Oh how terrible that the young boy is making that old man walk while he rides the donkey.” After passing the village and hearing this from so many people, the young boy and the old man decide to switch places. As they walk to the next village, the old man is riding the donkey and the young boy is walking alongside. When they arrive at the next village, they hear the people talking again, “Can you believe that old man is making such a young boy walk while he rides the donkey?” After passing the village and hearing this enough, they decide they will both walk alongside the donkey. They come to another village and hear more chatter, “What fools! Those two have a perfectly good donkey and they are just walking alongside it.” After leaving that village, they decide to both ride the donkey. At the next village, they hear people complaining, “That poor donkey! How can those two force it to carry both their weight?” So, they decide to get off and between the two of them carry the donkey the rest of the way. They come to a river and start to cross a bridge. Before they know it, they lose control, the donkey falls in the water and drowns.
 
The moral of the story: If you try to please everyone, you will surely lose your ass.
 
Thank you to Scott for introducing me to this fable from Aesop. 

​​I recently participated in a webinar on how people with different political views could engage in more meaningful dialogue with one another. In today’s highly polarized climate, it seems like this is a worthwhile topic of exploration. However, no sooner had the basic rules for discourse been laid down than disagreement exploded. In response to the claim that we should “Hold ourselves and each other in the highest regard, respect and compassion”, someone asked, “How do you respect people who are racists, sexists and bigots?”
 
The kind of respect that was being requested was one that asked for recognition of the basic dignity of another person, not respect in the sense of admiration of that person. Yet this minimum threshold was too much for one participant. Other participants began to offer justifications for the presumption of respect.
 
One person responded, “We have labeled the person a racist. He may not think he is. We need to respect his thinking, just as we want to be respected.” This may be true.  Miscommunication, misinformation, ignorance, or other factors often lead different people to contradictory conclusions regarding the beliefs or intentions of one another. It could be that the person is not racist at all, but was misheard. It could be that the person misspoke. It could be that the accuser was too loose in the application of these names. It is important to level criticisms for legitimate reasons rather than mere misunderstandings.
 
But what of people who really do hold deplorable beliefs, such as those who are openly racist and articulate in clear statements their support for the superiority of one group over another based on their race? Do they deserve basic respect from others?
 
Another person offered that even if someone has deplorable beliefs, you may still be able to learn from them. Again, this may be true. You may not ultimately adopt every view they hold. You may not be persuaded to agree with them on any view that they hold (even if they have sound views on matters beyond those beliefs that are deplorable). You may not even be convinced of the logical validity of how they justify their beliefs. By honestly listening to someone, though, you can come to understand what they believe are appropriate reasons to hold their beliefs, and so learn more about the way another human thinks.
 
But should your respect for another person depend upon your ability to learn from them or in some other way benefit from them?
 
All of the reasons offered in this forum for respecting others were conditional. They depended upon a person having some quality or being of some use to deserve respect.
 
What was missing from this conversation, and what may be missing more broadly in social and political discourse today, was the presumption that we ought to respect other people simply because they are other people. Human dignity is unconditional.
 
Humanity has made great progress in understanding this. But there is more work to be done. The dignity someone deserves should not be based on:

• Physical characteristics
• Personal orientations
• National origin
• Family lineage
• Group affiliation
• Intellectual ability
• Educational background
• Usefulness for others
• Personal beliefs (whether religious, scientific, sociological, moral, or otherwise)

 
This does not mean that every person is deserving of admiration or emulation. You can show respect to someone to someone that is morally reprehensible, the antithesis of a role model, someone that you actively work against in terms of public policy or private endeavors. Nor does it mean that every belief ought to be treated with the same level of intellectual seriousness. You can respect someone while saying that they are completely wrong about either empirical or moral beliefs.
 
All this calls for is to treat every person ought to receive a baseline level of respect from others for no other reason than being a person.
 
It is a sad state when someone starts with the presumption that others do not deserve respect. It is little better when the justification for extending respect is conditional. Now more than ever, it is important to articulate the concept of universal human dignity and adhere to it by showing respect for all.