Say you think “Felix” is a bad man. You don’t think he’s murdered anybody, stolen anything, or done anything else that overtly bad. He hasn’t even called anyone a bad name or used bad language. Rather, you believe Felix is bad because he seems to you to endorse parts of the current economic-legal-political-social system that you believe are inherently racist (even white supremacist) as well as sexist, anti-LGBTQ+, etc. He seems to you to be someone who endorses existing rules as they are regardless of the negative impact they have on underprivileged groups. It doesn’t matter, for my purposes here, whether any of that is true of Felix. The questions I want to ask are: how do you respond to Felix? how ought Felix and others respond to you?
What do you do? Do you try talking to Felix? Do you shun him? Do you try to embarrass him? Do you try to run him off?
From my, perspective it’s obvious that you should engage Felix in dialogue. You should try to figure out what he really believes. As a fallible but self-aware person, you should realize that you may be mistaken about him or the things he believes. So you should give Felix the opportunity to explain himself—and also to learn from you.
Say that it turns out that Felix is as bad as you thought. What do you do then? I would suggest that you should continue engaging him, trying to figure out why he has the bad views he has. Perhaps he adheres to some underlying principle that you reject or that you accept but think he misunderstands. Perhaps he is committed to some supposed value that you think is not a value at all or that you think is a value but that he misunderstands. Given any of these, you can have further discussion and perhaps get Felix to accept better views.
Of course, as already suggested, you may be wrong—you are, after all, fallible, so it may be that you were wrong about what views Felix holds or it may be that you were correct about that but wrong to think those views bad. That, too, might become clear when you engage with Felix.
Another possibility we have to recognize is that you are so lacking in self-awareness, that you can’t see any possible way you can be mistaken. You may be so caught up in your worldview (whether that worldview be right, wrong, or partly right and partly wrong) that you are blinded to other possibilities. Perhaps you don’t even think you’re fallible. In these cases, you’re unlikely to think you will learn anything from engaging with Felix. But presumably you would think you could teach him something. It may be, though, that you think he is so dense, stupid, or evil, as to not be worth engaging. That is to say, you may not believe he is worthy of any respect whatsoever.
The options seem to be: either you show Felix and others respect and engage with them or you show that you do not respect them or think you have any obligation to even feign respect for them. Of course, that latter path is inconsistent with living in a liberal democracy, where we see our fellow citizens as all equals and treat them as such. Indeed, it’s inconsistent with living in any sort of genuine community—which is not just a group of people but a group of people with shared interests, heritage, or at least a shared commitment to living well with each other. You can’t have that with people you deem unfit for respect. (Perhaps you can live with such people as their care-taker; people so lacking in the basic abilities that would make them due respect would likely need such.)
(To be clear: throughout, I am talking of “respect” as a minimal, Kantian, notion wherein we recognize the other as a valid source of a normative claim—especially a claim to equal treatment and against mistreatment. I’m not suggesting we must esteem everyone we are in community with. I am suggesting we must presumptively treat people as rational and capable.)
The next question we have to ask moves us from the personal (what should I do) to the social or political: what should other people do with regard to you? If you are willing to treat Felix (and everyone else) with respect, I think, the question is easy to answer: everyone should treat everyone with respect, so they should treat you with respect. The more difficult question is: what should others do with regard to you if you are unable or unwilling to treat Felix (or others) with respect?
Given your inability or unwillingness to treat Felix (or others) with respect, is there any reason for you to be shown the basic respect you refuse to show them? I think there is. In part because I recognize my own fallibility and that of my community members and co-citizens, I think it important that we show respect to everyone, even those who fail to show respect to us. After all, perhaps we are mistaken and those that disrespect us are right to do so. Certainly, it may be that you are right to disrespect Felix. We should at least be open to learning why we might be mistaken or thought to be mistaken. Perhaps we can learn to explain our views better. Improving our ability to rationally persuade you and others is clearly valuable if we care anything for community or democratic legitimacy.
Importantly, by hypothesis, you are not open to learning you are mistaken—that is entailed by your failure to recognize you may be mistaken about Felix. It thus seems to me that while you are due respect, you have no right to expect it. Perhaps, given the obvious risk that because you do not respect them, you will mistreat them, you should not be allowed to hold any office or have any power over other citizens or community members. After all, they do have reason to think you will try to control them (since you do not believe them to be capable). Hence, you might reasonably worry that they would seek to limit you.
It’s worth recognizing that people—perhaps many—may be so swayed by you (despite your obvious failings) that they want you to hold office or have power of some sort. This is unfortunate, but if we are committed to living in a democracy of some sort, if the rules of that democracy leave you in office or with power, we’d have to accept that very unfortunate consequence of people’s mistakes. (The same is true, of course, with regard to Felix: even if he is bad, others may unfortunately want to give him power.) As all likely agree, even masses of people can make the same mistake, including in choosing leaders. (As Churchill said, “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”)
Note: In case its not clear, either “Felix” or “you” (the Felix-hater) may be in the upper left quadrant of the table discussed in my last post.
"The options seem to be: either you show Felix and others respect and engage with them or you show that you do not respect them or think you have any obligation to even feign respect for them."
Huh?? How about I "respect" Felix (meaning that I grant that he deservedly has the same rights as I do) but I DON'T "engage" with him? Or at least, I don't go out of my way to try to stir up a conversation regarding views he has that I disagree with. It seems as if the author would turn us all into Jehovah's Witnesses, if not for religion then for everything else under the sun.
I'm happy to share my (highly libertarian) views with anyone who is interested, but it's neither courteous nor productive to be pushy with them.
Respect is a feeling that can't be directly chosen (although it can sometimes be cultivated). Luckily, respect is not necessary. We only need to tolerate the liberty of other people by not imposing on their persons or property. But "democracy" (in any version) is inconsistent with such practical toleration.