Differences between people have and hopefully always will exist in our world. Diversity is what defines us both as a human race and as individuals. If all people were to comply with a uniform standard, we would each lose our sense of individuality when given nothing to compare to. Variety is an integral piece of society. Unfortunately, it is these same differences that are the root of the most terrible tragedies we humans inflict upon ourselves.
Of all the values and ideals that I cherish, respect is central to them all. It is the key element of a society that is capable of allowing different cultures to flourish both within it and alongside of it. As I sat down to consider which cause I am most dedicated to, it was easy to think of many current political and societal conflicts which I have strong personal opinions about. The harder part was identifying which larger ideal connects all of these fleeting concerns because that is unmistakably the value which remains most important to me. A lack of respect and tolerance for opinions and lifestyles different from one’s own was apparent in many of the issues that I am committed to, and therefore respect seemed to be the most fundamental priority.
I’m not simply advocating the definition of respect that we have been taught in school. Respect in the form of raising your hand in class or being able to politely discuss the upcoming election is the customary parameter which is easy to follow and even easier to praise. This is respect in its simplest and easiest form; respect involving opinions alone. Respect becomes challenging, and even more imperative, however, when our emotions, morals, and lifelong standards are questioned and even threatened. This means respecting the beliefs of the extremist in the Middle East who kills in the name of his god, or the racist who shaves his head and tattoos a swastika to his arm.
This is when respect becomes more difficult to maintain and even to justify. How can it be the morally “right” thing to respect a person who commits heinous crimes and upholds evil beliefs? It is natural and admirable to want to spread ones own standards of right and wrong. Many peaceful religions advocate this and many commendable people attempt it. There is nothing more praiseworthy than attempting to change the world for the best as we see it, a deed that borders on the verge of being a human obligation.
However, it is when our ideas are presented as being a better solution to a wrong answer rather than an alternative to a previously existing “solution” that we have broken this integral respect. The human race cannot possibly define one moral code and so we must accept different, offensive, and even heartbreaking opinions as the values that others chooses to live by. This doesn’t advocate ignorance and acceptance of social ills and wrongdoings upon others. We can, and should, expose our own beliefs and opinions but not at the risk of impeding upon others. The only exception to this rule is when one person’s beliefs begin to prevent someone else from upholding their beliefs. When we see another’s freedom of expression being obstructed, we may be forced to break this code of respect in order to prevent the offensive party from robbing someone else of their liberties.
The world we live in today remains as diverse as it ever was, but we are finding ourselves increasingly connected through new technologies. It has become impossible to live within a sheltered bubble that houses only one style of living. One of the most dangerous threats to our global society is the assumption that one moral standard must be implemented. Those in power have the huge responsibility of observing respect and tolerance for the minority who disagree with them. To overcome the ever-growing conflicts arising between cultures, it is necessary that we accept all sets of beliefs as valid opinions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
You conclude, "To overcome the ever-growing conflicts arising between cultures, it is necessary that we accept all sets of beliefs as valid opinions."
I wonder if we must accept them as "valid opinions." We certainly must respect individuals, particularly if we believe some good can be found within each person. But must we "accept"?
Have you studied cultural pluralism? Thomas F.Green writes about cultural pluralism and education. If you can find his book, Activities of Teaching, take a look at it. I believe it may be out of print.
I am reminded of the concepts of cultural pluralism as I read your blog. Perhaps it is a matter of learning to co-exist with rather than just accept others. Is it fear that prevents cultural pluralism? Today cultural pluralism is more prevalent than it once was, but we still have a long way to go.
I really liked how your main point of this post was not about a specific instance, but about the larger picture. Respect is definitely an everyday aspect of our lives, and is often the root of many issues that we encounter. Based upon the examples that you gave, such as certain cultural and religious groups I think you managed to find a possible cause for many conflicts in the world. As theteach said, maybe learning to coexist could solve the difficulties with the cultural divisions in the world. Although respect sounds like such a novel idea, until we learn to coexist, that respect level will not exist. I recently had to argue for debate team about a mock case involving an Amish man and the Patriot Act. through a provision of the act, the man was being told he had to have his picture taken (a violation of his religious ideals and tradition)for his license, or he would not be able to drive his horse and buggy. In this case it was difficult to argue just how far the government could argue with the man before they would be infringing upon his beliefs. Although respect is a vital part of daily interactions, in some cases beliefs must be altered so that equality and peace can be preserved. I think you make a valid case for the respect of other beliefs, but it is quite difficult to maintain that argument in reality. Overall, our argument was well-developed and made me think about who and what I respect, and why I have those ideas. Certainly a thought-provoking post.
To thetheach:
Thanks for the book suggestion. You're right, it does seem to be hard to find, but I'll keep looking. I'm guessing that this is something I'm not going to be able to find in a library??
In regards to the notion of learning to co-exist, to me, such a task requires an acceptance. Perhaps not an appreciation, but the ability to recognize the fact that another belief exists and it is very likely that you will not be able to change it. I wondered if accept may not have been the right word, but one definition that seemed appropriate was cited as "to receive or admit as adequate or satisfactory." Can you successfully coexist without doing this?
To cinderella:
Your response was equally thought provoking for me. I certainly agree with the fact that it can be hard to maintain such an idealistic standpoint in reality. When opposing beliefs clash, it is sometimes impossible for both parties to adhere completely to the standards that they would like to follow and still receive the same results they were hoping for. I don't think, however, that "beliefs must be altered so that equality and peace can be preserved." Compromises and accomodations must be made, but altering someone's beliefs seems almost like a contradiciton, because what is peace if not the freedom to follow your beliefs?
It's a very tough situation that lends itself to a paradox. I go back and forth with it a lot, but eventually just seem to end up with some hopelessly idealistically answer :)
You write: "I wondered if accept may not have been the right word, but one definition that seemed appropriate was cited as "to receive or admit as adequate or satisfactory." Can you successfully coexist without doing this?"
I take one of those deep breaths of wonder and ponder this. Can we coexist without accepting as adequate? Right now I say yes. Having watched the commentary of today's primary elections, I think about that which I consider inadequate yet I accept.
I read today's science section in the N. Y. Times. If you can access it online, or better yet get a hard copy, I recommend reading about the "Family Science Project" at a Siberian Lake and "Redefining Disease, Genes, and All." Sobering and yet fascinating.
In 1986 the NY Times published an article about food surplus around the world. Today we read articles about severe food shortages. Costs of foods increase daily.
I cannot accept what we are doing, but I understand it, and yes, live with it. I will work in my little corner of the world to try to make some changes, but I cannot do much more.
It all is troubling. When do we stand up and say enough and begin the great campaign that causes change? I look to young people like you and your classmates to become the catalysts of change. All of you are exceptionally intelligent and thoughtful. You must become our leaders and reteach as well as teach us to love our land, our oceans, our air, and in particular, one another.
Post a Comment