[Cause]

I recently have been seeing the following post on Facebook a lot: 'I was raised to treat the janitor with the same respect as the CEO'.


This statement does not sit well with me. I offered instead 'I was raised to treat both the Janitor and CEO with respect but not the SAME respect'.

I was vilified! The original statement however as I say really does not sit well with me. There is a difference between being respectful, considerate and treating people with care and acknowledging people who have accomplished great things. Or sometimes just acknowledging someone's higher rank than yours.

The statement could just as easily be rewritten as I was raised to treat students with the same respect as Nobel prize winners'. We seem to be confusing, more and more, that manners and a desire not to offend anyone does not change the truth of how the world or systems work.

Id let it go but this post does not seem to be an isolated incident, instead its part of a growing movement against elitism, the 1% or whatever buzzword is in fashion at the moment. In my own country it seems quite common for people to want others to have less even though it wont mean they will get more.

Tangentially related perhaps: In my country the CEO of one of the largest chains of grocery stores (checkers) received a multi million rand bonus after decades of service. The unions were aghast that one man should be paid so much and the workers should be paid so little. At first I agreed with them. It seemed unnecessary. However, I did some digging and the CEO single handedly built a chain of 3 stores in one town to a business empire that spans the continent of Africa and now employs over 300 000 people. If his bonus had been split equally be every worker they would have got a once off bonus of about 15 rand. Without him they would potentially be unemployed.

Lastly, I also think that we need to be taught at a younger age that being polite does not have to be our default position. I have seen people (sometimes I am that person) that struggles to stand up for themselves because it can be difficult to demand your rights and be polite at the same time. I have seen women at bars and clubs being harassed but lack the ability to extricate themselves from the situation because they don't want to be rude. I have seen people stay in dysfunctional relationships because they don't want to initiate the break up and hurt their partners feelings. I have seen beggars/conmen who strike up a meaningless but overly polite conversation with people make it almost impossible for the person on the receiving end to say no to their later requests for money.

I think my thoughts are perhaps little jumbled and all over the place, and I might be confusing a bunch of separate issues, but I really dislike the statement and what it seems to represent. All people deserve a modicum of respect just because we would all like to be treated well, however peoples achievements should not be erased either.

if you treat every man like your brother, you treat your brother like every man.

This post has been edited by Cause: 04 December 2017 - 08:45 AM

[Aptorian]

What you're arguing in my eyes doesn't sound separate from debates about socialism vs capitalism. And it feels like you're adressing what is at the heart of especially USA's issues with class and cultural differences.

From a fiscal perspective, from a development perspective, the CEO or the Doctor or the Mayor or Judge are more important people in society. Their contributions to society can be of immeasurable worth. And it is something that is indeed worthy of respect and honor. But from a human perspective, I believe that nobody is better than anybody else. I am not better than a homeless person, just because I have a house or a job. I am not a better person that a criminal just because they've served time. I am not better than the refugees and immigrants, just because I was born here. Etc. etc.

My fundamental outlook on life is very much in line with a set of laws put forth in a famous Danish play, in which the author made fun of the common (village/farmer) mentality of the Scandinavian folk. It's called The Law of Jante and looks like this:

https://en.wikipedia...ki/Law_of_Jante

Quote

The ten rules state:

• You're not to think you are anything special.
  
• You're not to think you are as good as we are.
  
• You're not to think you are smarter than we are.
  
• You're not to imagine yourself better than we are.
  
• You're not to think you know more than we do.
  
• You're not to think you are more important than we are.
  
• You're not to think you are good at anything.
  
• You're not to laugh at us.
  
• You're not to think anyone cares about you.
  
• You're not to think you can teach us anything.

Keep in mind, this outlook is socially and societally restrictive but doesn't stop people from striving for success or greatness. It is merely a reminder that wealth, knowledge, power, etc. are not attributes that set you apart from the rest of your people. If you do believe that, you will be laughed at and suffer scorn.

The thing about CEO's is that they don't build empires on their own. They build them through leadership. The CEO's success is based on the work of their leders and their workers. The CEO may have the vision and the drive but a supermarket chain of 300,000 people is an organisational organism that functions perfectly with out the CEO. The CEO merely steers the ship when corrections need to be made. From a socialist perspective, it is the workers that deserve praise for putting their backs in to it and realizing the goals.

Don't get me wrong. A CEO deserves higher pay (within limits) and certain benefits. And they deserve respect for the amount of responsibility they carry. But they are not better than the janitor. That kind of thinking is the root of the West's gigantic wage disparities. A CEO does not deserve millions of rand, if the janitor can't afford a descent life on the pay he earns working for that CEO. That's where the true lack of respect exists in my opinion.

EDIT:

Believing that somebody deserves more respect than another person is dangerous I think, because it leads to the idea of class, which leads to the notion of worth. It leads to the idea that some people deserve what they have and other deserve what they haven't. It becomes impossible to distinguish between those who earn their respect/standing and those who cheated their way to such a position. It ignores personality, temperament, generosity and becomes a numbers game.

It's Christmas time. We should strive to treat all our fellow men and women as though they were our friends and family.

This post has been edited by Alternative Goose: 04 December 2017 - 12:01 PM

[Cause]

I cant agree, the CEO is far more important to a company than the Janitor. The CEO does more than right she ship. Especially if that CEO builds a company over 30 years from 3 stores to thousands.


respect

/rɪˈspɛkt/

noun

noun: respect; plural noun: respects

1. a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements.
"the director had a lot of respect for Douglas as an actor"

2. due regard for the feelings, wishes, or rights of others.
"young people's lack of respect for their parents"



Everyone deserves the 2nd kinds of kind of respect. Not everyone deserves the first kind, or at least they don't deserve it to equal degree. A person is a person and I believe all should be treated kindly. A janitor is not trash. However the CEO would be objectively more important in my opinion. The one makes the employment of the other possible.

Although the quote compared a CEO with A janitor and I added an anecdote in my country about a CEO and his bonus this matter to me goes further. A scientist who is an expert in his field with 30 years experience in his field? His opinion should be respected more than say a Hollywood actress who says vaccines cause autism. PS I would speak to the actress first about acting advice. Now strictly speaking science would warn you against an appeal to authority, nothing can be known for certain until you have tested it but in practice no one has the time to retest and prove all of science from first principles for themselves. Respect has to have graduations.

Its also my understanding that socialism in the Nordic model believes that everyone should have enough for their needs, that the means of production should be owned and regulated by the community but that the system still acknowledges that people who work harder should receive more.

Elitism has become a dirty word. It can have negative traits such knobbiness or class divides. However I cant see how wanting to be the best can be a bad thing.

[Silencer]

Wanting to be the best becomes a bad thing when it comes at the expense of others. Which is why most CEOs deserve very little respect, tbh. XD

Now, that's a broad generalisation, but your average Wall St CEO is a predatory, malicious, egotistical asshole. Are they "good" at running their company? If your definition of good at running a company is "more profits at all costs", then yes, and maybe they deserve a certain kind of respect for being so ruthless and uncaring that they are able to deliver that while tanking the global economy in full knowledge of their actions.


Is Martin Shkreli worthy of respect? Does he "deserve" respect simply because he was a CEO? Or because he grew the profits of his company? I would contend he is not.



See, the thing is, you're right when you say there are degrees of respect. Which is why "respect" is not automatically granted to, say, a CEO, just because they are a CEO. You might have to *show* respect to *your* CEO. But you don't have to respect them. At least, not any more than any other human being. Because they might be a terrible person. Or they might "just be average". Their position is not automatically worthy of respect.

In the same way that I would not respect "Dr" Andrew Wakefield. Because he committed medical fraud and continues to mislead people about vaccines. So while I might give more weight to the opinion of a scientist, I am not obliged to respect them any more than any other person. Their knowledge, perhaps. Depending on how well corroborated their knowledge is. And I might respect them as a source of information. I might even respect their years of effort to attain their knowledge. But should I rank them above another person in terms of intrinsic value?

Because I contend there is a huge difference between what you are reading into the "CEO vs the Janitor" proverb, and what you are talking about when you refer to respecting the opinion of a scientist. Respecting the scientist's opinion (and let's be honest, if it's a scientist talking about their field of research, it's probably not an "opinion") is not the same thing as respecting the scientist. And respecting the scientist is not the same thing as *showing* respect to the scientist while they are giving a lecture.


Now, to put a hypothetical into consideration: you say that the janitor is not as valuable to the company as the CEO; fair enough. But you also say that the CEO is the reason the janitor has a job. But the only reason the CEO has a job, is because people buy from his store. So are the customers (which may include the janitor) therefore worthy of *more* respect than the CEO, in your view? After all, without the customers, the CEO would be unemployed. And, what if that janitor, hypothetically, had to keep the furnace in the basement from exploding on a daily basis? His job arguably then saves lives, while the CEO merely provides jobs. And what if the CEO was embezzling funds from his own company? Does that adjust the respect you should show him? What if he retires, and another CEO takes over. Does he deserve the same respect? More? Less? Does the respect he should be shown change over time?




The point is, respect, as a base level of treatment, is something all people deserve. Respect, as in admiration, is in no way intrinsically related to one's status or job title. That janitor may be the most hardworking son of a bitch in that company. Or, to borrow from House M.D., maybe he's the guy who the top doctors of the hospital go to, when they can't solve a problem. You don't know. You can't know. So why do you assume that he is less worthy of respect than the CEO? Is the President of the United States worthy of more or less respect than the CEO of Apple? Is Mugabe worthy of as much respect as Zuma? More? Less? Is the respect entitled to a world leader the same just because they are at the top of their country? Or do we all respect Kim Jong Un a little bit less than the rest of them?


In short; I think you might be confusing Authority with Respect. And Deference with Respect. While you might respect someone's authority, and while you might show deference to someone's authority, it doesn't mean you have to Respect them. And just because someone has authority, and receives deference, does not mean they are worthy of Respect. I've worked for plenty of people who have a list of accomplishments much longer than my own, but I didn't respect them any more than I respected the newest member of my team who just left high school last year, because frankly they were bad at their job. And I've also worked with people who, with no acknowledgement or praise or respect being sent their way, were the actual reason shit got done around the place. And they didn't need to be CEO to be that important to the business.

[Aptorian]

I think you're right in that Respect has different meanings, in different contexts. Such a debate could quickly become academic but the way I see you using the word, I think it can easily be substituted by other words, admiration, trust, dependence, confidence, etc.

As an authority, as you yourself mention, yes, I would respect the words of a CEO over a layman, on the subject of running a corporation and similar related issues. But here we're talking about expectations to a persons professional or personal know how. This in and of itself, does not mean that I will necessarily respect the person more than any other.

If we return to this janitor example, the CEO makes the Janitors job possible, but there is a reverse dependence on the Janitorial staff and other technical personnel that the CEO and the rest of the management is dependent upon. Janitors fill out a role in the corporation/business, that is similar to say the Garbage Man/sanitation worker, in modern society. The Janitor cleans, tidies up and restocks various stations in the business. This in turn frees the other workers and the management up, so that they can dedicate their time to other important matters. If you fire all the cleaners at your office, what happens? If you do nothing, everything turns to shit and you're living in filth or you have to start cleaning your office yourself. This takes out valuable time every day. As such, the (good/efficient) janitor is actually an invaluable asset.

Unfortunately, it doesn't take much training to become a Janitor, so nobody puts much worth in the profession, and as such they're paid a pittance. But they have a role. And this translates to every citizen in society. From the dawn of civilization, till today, there have been people who have small, insignificant positions in our hierarchies, but they are essential for the great machine to function. Without the cheap laborers, the cogs get gummed up and you lose efficiency.

In the socialist perspective, we're all worker bee's filling out our roles, working hard for the greater good. Some have more important tasks than others, but all jobs are meaningful. I guess what I am really getting at is that any person who works hard and do their part, is worthy of respect.

Then of course we could get into what makes people lose respect. I can certainly understand the perspective that CEO is more respectable than a lower position in a business but your title does not say everything about a person. Our actions speak louder than words. There is a reason why many people distrust, hate or deride people in a CEO position. Some CEO's lie, steal and cheat to make themselves and their corporation/business more rich and powerful. This to me is to opposite of deserving respect. This is disgusting. This awakens something akin to old testament resentment of the money lenders and the rich fat cats who would starve their fellow man, so that they could buy a yacht or nicer suit. Fuck that.

EDIT: Silencer beat me to a lot of the points I wanted to make.

This post has been edited by Alternative Goose: 04 December 2017 - 02:23 PM

[Gust Hubb]

For me respect is both earned. I believe in a baseline politeness to people in general, but the higher up you are, the more you have to prove to earn my respect. Part of this stems from life experiences, namely, seeing those at the top be careless with their work. The other part stems from my belief that society is a cooperative effort where regardless of profession and person, everyone has or can play a role in the functioning of society. Therefore, while a CEO is payed more and typically granted wide reaching deference, he/she has a harder time earning my respect by virtue of more information to evaluate (more proof hurdles to jump).

It is my experience that those at the top are often those ruthless enough to pile the bodies high for their success. Not always true, but unfortunately more often true than not in my estimation. Take for example the famous scientist who gets that Nobel prize and is the sole recipient of all the fame and accolade. How many underlings does the winner represent? Research can be an awful hierarchy, where credit is the currency of a pyramid scheme. Fame goes ultimately to the principle investigator, even if the PI has become a glorified grant writer and his/her underlings the cash cows providing the fresh insights and labor.

Furthermore, as a doctor, I am not convinced that the title doctor makes one any more productive, smart, or talented than the general public. A lot of doctoring is statistics and terminology. At the end of the day, what a doctor does amounts to going through a case, puzzling what is wrong (if anything), and then doing something about it that will hopefully work (there is a lot of probability in medicine, story for another day). Sure there is a lot of learning behind such opinions (same with car mechanics I would bet). Sure the product is a person's life (same product as nurses and paramedics). And sure a lot of doctors work very hard (as people do in any job really). And there are more serious risks, although I would take those risks any day over those of a soldier's or coal miner's. But in the end, the doctor is a piece of a functional society, entirely codependent on other people in their sphere and those outside their sphere, interlocked to make what is the modern world.

And I get it. There are differences in talent, brains, ability. But in those abilities there are opportunities that provide inherent reward. I feel like those with more take more and sully their contributions with greed.

[Morgoth]

If the respect one deserves is inherently tied to the the economic value of ones output at work, then yes, a CEO is worthy of more respect than a janitor.

[Gorefest]

Seems to be more a debate on semantics than on content, tbh.

Treating someone with respect is different from having respect for someone.

This post has been edited by Gorefest: 04 December 2017 - 06:28 PM

[Morgoth]

Gorefest, on 04 December 2017 - 06:26 PM, said:

Seems to be more a debate on semantics than on content, tbh.

Treating someone with respect is different from having respect for someone.

That's entirely not what it is. It's a question of what we consider to be of value. I for one find economic output rather irrelevant. Or the effort it took to reach a position of employment for that matter. As if that's more worthy of respect than say, being a good father, or whatever else one can do to live a good life.

[Macros]

Respect is something that has to be earned.
Not a position you are born into.
Accruing wealth in disgusting amounts on the backs of others does not gain my respect.
Being lucky enough to be born into a privileged position (say royalty or, for example a billionaires son who turns into an orange tyrant) doesn't gain my respect.

[worry]

As I understand it, corporations are people, my friend. Even a CEO can be replaced more readily, is less vital to the functioning of business, than the corporation. Thus, corporations deserve the most respect.

[Andorion]

I do not think that simply occupying a high position entitles one to respect.

Two things need to be taken into account

1. What did that individual do to gain that position? Hard work? Inheritance? Bought into the position? SOme kind of deal or agreement? Were the means legal, illegal or unethical? All of these would definitely inform my attitude

2. How does the person live/act after attaining that position? Is there abuse of power? Arrogance? Greed? Corruption?

A certain baseline politeness is ideal, but I do not respect people only because of their position.

[Cause]

Morgoth, on 04 December 2017 - 06:42 PM, said:

Gorefest, on 04 December 2017 - 06:26 PM, said:

Seems to be more a debate on semantics than on content, tbh.

Treating someone with respect is different from having respect for someone.

That's entirely not what it is. It's a question of what we consider to be of value. I for one find economic output rather irrelevant. Or the effort it took to reach a position of employment for that matter. As if that's more worthy of respect than say, being a good father, or whatever else one can do to live a good life.

If you choose to value good fathers that's fine. The word good however implies that not all fathers are good fathers. Therefore in this criteria alone some fathers deserve more respect than others?

Also not every CEO is parasitic scum. Some CEOs are the founders of small businesses that employ anything from 1-10 people. Anyone can in theory start their own business not everyone does. We can talk about the exceptions of course, the CEO who runs daddies business, the scientists like David Wakefield who misuse their position to publish 'science' that will line their own pocket. I think such exceptions muddy the water. Of course every situation must be evaluated on its own merits or lack thereof, however Id say in general scientists should be respected more on matters of science, that Doctors should get the first and last say on treating your cancer.

I have a low opinion of athletes in general. For me personally being the fastest runner is like being the best at a skill that wont change the world. Also more and more research seems to indicate that the best athletes are to some degree or another born with the right genetics. Acknowledging that's how I feel I also acknowledge that the world must be filled with quite a few people who can make amazing runners and swimmers but not all have the dedication to train 4+ hours a day to become an Olympic level athlete. Not everyone wants to be one sure, but that does not diminish the work that Usain bolt still needs to do to pursue his work.

I'm not seeking to create an objective scale of respect where we decide if mayors rank above police chiefs or the other way around. I'm trying to understand why people object to the notion that some achievements are worthy of more respect than others. We don't even need to agree on what those achievements are.

[Maark Abbott]

worry, on 04 December 2017 - 09:39 PM, said:

As I understand it, corporations are people, my friend. Even a CEO can be replaced more readily, is less vital to the functioning of business, than the corporation. Thus, corporations deserve the most respect.

Well, legally a company or corporation is a person (of sorts, usually a legal entity distinct to the people working for it) so you're pretty much spot on there.

[Silencer]

Cause, on 05 December 2017 - 08:21 AM, said:

*snip*

I'm not seeking to create an objective scale of respect where we decide if mayors rank above police chiefs or the other way around. I'm trying to understand why people object to the notion that some achievements are worthy of more respect than others. We don't even need to agree on what those achievements are.

Probably because the original statement and your revised one are not talking about respect for achievements but respect for people. And also because the entire point of the original statement is that one's position should not be used as a scale by which respect is measured.

There's also the point to be made that achievements are relative. A child might only be able to lift a fraction of the weight their parents can, but that doesn't reduce the relative effort they put into shifting furniture around the house, for example.

I'd also hope that you can see why, by your own example, taking someone being a CEO is not an automatic marker for respecting them more than someone else. Hell, even a self-made entrepreneur is not automatically someone to respect for their achievements - because unless you know the details, you're judging them on the outcome, and ignoring the methods they (might) have used. Which are a huge factor in gauging whether an achievement is worthy of respect (for example, if someone murders your entire team repeatedly in a video game, it is not respectable if they used cheats, but it is respectable if they were doing that based entirely off skill [and weren't deliberately trying to get into matches with unskilled players]) - see, even my two-second example of something as inane as video game success requires at least two caveats. Now imagine how many caveats there are to something like "being a CEO"! XD

[Puck]

Cause, on 05 December 2017 - 08:21 AM, said:

I have a low opinion of athletes in general. For me personally being the fastest runner is like being the best at a skill that wont change the world. Also more and more research seems to indicate that the best athletes are to some degree or another born with the right genetics. Acknowledging that's how I feel I also acknowledge that the world must be filled with quite a few people who can make amazing runners and swimmers but not all have the dedication to train 4+ hours a day to become an Olympic level athlete. Not everyone wants to be one sure, but that does not diminish the work that Usain bolt still needs to do to pursue his work.

I'm going to tackle this part for now because I don't have much time. Are you aware that to excel at anything you need to be born with the right genetics? That includes your precious CEOs, because whether you are born with money or not, unless you have the intellectual properties needed to succeed in business, you're not going to go far without getting money stuffed up your sunshine-less spot from elsewhere. No high performing scientist, CEO, athlete, artist, musician, engineer, etc. can come that far without pre-existing inherent predispositions, some more specific (athletes) and others less (CEOs). And while excelling at one thing may requiere mostly dedication, excelling at the other can be dependant on luck. You don't know how mayn excellent, humane potential CEOs are out there who would, if they had the means, build corporations that treat their eployees like people rather than trash on their way to more money.

Additionally, as far as I'm concerned, we're talking about two different things in the two quotes in your opening post. I think the first is a badly worded way to say that everyone deserves to be treated with decency, and I absolutely agree. Whether someone has achieved anything in life or not, as soon as we collectively treat certain people with less decency and regard to their nature as a human being, society becomes imbalaned (well, we are and it is, and the goal is to change that, not keep it that way). It happens with the simplest things, like going into a bakery to buy bread; the suit-wearer will in some places be tread differently from someone who looks like a janitor (even if he may just be a CEO out to buy some rolls while doing garden work on his day off). Even if they're buying the same thing. How is that acceptable? A corporation in it's ideal state is a well-oiled machine, if the janitor isn't keeping the building functional, nobody has a place to work at.

At the same time, you are talking about respecting people's achievements while dismissing what YOU perceive as not worthy of your regard. You think athletes don't contribute enough to society? Or artists? Or musicians? Society would not exist without the underlying culture and guess what? Sports and art and music are culture, and we are animals with a need for culture. If in your opinion respect is due only to those who visibly contribute to society or have achieved something important, you are dismissing all those who may do so invisibly or may have not yet had a chance to.

[Gorefest]

Puck, on 05 December 2017 - 09:59 AM, said:

I'm going to tackle this part for now because I don't have much time. Are you aware that to excel at anything you need to be born with the right genetics? That includes your precious CEOs, because whether you are born with money or not, unless you have the intellectual properties needed to succeed in business, you're not going to go far without getting money stuffed up your sunshine-less spot from elsewhere. No high performing scientist, CEO, athlete, artist, musician, engineer, etc. can come that far without pre-existing inherent predispositions, some more specific (athletes) and others less (CEOs). And while excelling at one thing may requiere mostly dedication, excelling at the other can be dependant on luck. You don't know how mayn excellent, humane potential CEOs are out there who would, if they had the means, build corporations that treat their eployees like people rather than trash on their way to more money.

Well, that is the old nature vs nurture debate. I would be very careful to state it this matter-of-factly, because this only holds to varying degrees for varying activities. There are plenty of examples where people can excel at things without any 'genetic predisposition' for it. PHysical attributes (e.g. athletes) will have more nature influences, but when you start making such claims for intelligence, business sense, etc you are really going down a very slippery slope. We know way too little about things like brain development to state whether there are significant genetic components to such traits or whether they have been nurtured during development.