Category: Let's talk
According to Jackie's DeShannon's song "What the World Needs Now is Love," it's the only thing we have just too little of. While I agree we need more love in the world, there can be no love without one simple pre-requisite: RESPECT.
The definition of RESPECT is to esteem, honor or show a sense of worth toward a person or personal quality. Every person deserves respect, and because they do not get it at crucial, formative times of their lives, they develop coping patterns which evolve into persnally and collectively destructive behaviors.
In his book, "Metaphysics of Morals" Kant described his belief that, as a human being, everyone has worth, independent of "social standing or individual merit." He argued for a basic respect for human beings that is not based upon heredity, social rank, behavior or even moral goodness.
That doesn't mean we have to agree with what a person believes or the actions they take, by respecting them we aren't condoning behaviors we don't agree with or letting them off the hook for hurting us. Respect is simply affirming that a person has worth. And no matter what a person has done, no matter what mistakes they have made, that does not detract from their worth.
Our whole world is fixated on the idea that a person's worth is derived from their actions. Rewards and punishments were invented because we value some
beliefs and actions more than others. Our societies try to decide for us what is
worthy and unworthy of respect, and punish those who don't follow these standards. This punishment is in and of itself disrespectful.
There is no one lifestyle or belief system that is right while all others are wrong. A person or group is extremely judgmental to think that their way is the only one that is right. When one person or group imposes their own standards on everyone else, this is disrespectful. Each individual should decide for himself what his own values and standards are, and live by them. But he should not think that he has the right to hold everyone else to those same standards. What is right for one person is not right for another.
Every problem that exists in our world today is caused by a lack of respect. Countries at war; robbery and murder; domestic violence; physical, emotional and sexual abuse; conflicts caused by religious differences, problems between friends and relatives, and ESPECIALLY the problem of disrespect of children by their parents, resulting in the use of rewards and punishments. This is where a lifelong pattern of disrespect begins. We learn it from our parents. Then we spend a whole lifetime trying to unlearn how we were conditioned, and take back our personal power and self-respect.
It is often argued that people have to be punished so they will learn to respect others. But this is not the lesson that is learned. If you want people to learn altruistic behavior, you must focus on the behavior you want, NOT the behavior you want to avoid. What you focus on you get more of (The Law of Attraction). So punishing someone for what you don't want focuses on the thing you DON'T want, which produces more of what you don't want in the long run.
So then they say, use rewards for the behavior you DO want. But this backfires because you still are not focusing on what you really want. You REALLY want for people to do the "right" thing because it is right, but what they end up learning is to do what is right only when there is a reward.
The only way to engender unconditional respect in another person is to GIVE that person unconditional respect as a model. Unconditional respect has NO strings. No punishment or rewards, no coersion, not even trying to make the person feel guilty because they didn't do what you wanted. The person MUST be convinced that no matter what they do, their worth will not go down in your eyes. And that is where people fail. They are unwilling to give others that kind of respect, and so they will never get it in return.
This is very logical and has been proved again an again in research, as well as my own personal and professional experience.
For those who must approach this discussion from a spiritual perspective in order to give themselves permission to change their beliefs, this is exactly what Jesus did in his life. He said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." In other words, no one has the right to punish someone else because we all make mistakes, therefore none of us is qualified to judge someone else. No One. And even Jesus, a spiritual being, refused to judge her either. In his whole life, Jesus refused to judge a whole array of people who were doing socially unacceptable things. Prostitutes, theives, adulterers, userers, he spoke to none of them about their behavior, he simply treated them with a respect that the rest of society refused to show them, and by doing this, won their love, respect and allegiance. Without punishments or rewards.
Jesus also made it clear that the basis for punishment - an eye for an eye - is also not a valid or desirable way to live. Instead of punishing those who hurt us, he said to "Love your enemies, bless them that hate you, do good to them who persecute you, and pray for those who despitefully use you and persecute you" (Matthew 5:44). How much clearer can it be? When someone behaves toward you in a way that you don't like or that hurts you, you are NOT to punish them in any way, but show good to them in return. THAT is unconditional respect. The way you behave toward someone else should NOT be affected by the way they treat YOU.
When someone does something you don't like or that hurts you, there is a way to tell them that you don't like what they are doing without judging them, shaming them, or punishing them. An example:
Your 6-year-old son agreed to always pick up his Legos if you would buy some some. He usually does put them up, but on three consecutive days he has forgotten to put them all away, and you stepped on one of them and hurt your foot.
The old way would have been: "Son, you promised to pick up your Legos and you haven't done it. As a punishment, you will not be able to play with your Legos for a week so you will remember to pick them up."
(Logical question: if he can't play with them, he can't practice remembering to pick them up).
The respectful way: "Remember when you stepped on that piece of glass and cut your foot? That hurt, didn't it? When I step on Legos that are on the floor, it hurts my foot and makes me cry." You have only told how stepping on the Legos concretely affected you. You have not shamed, blamed or pointed fingers. You have not made the child feel humiliated or dis-respected by shaking your finger at him or taking away something that belongs to him. You have not put him in the corner or made him go to his room or withdrawn your presence, affection or esteem from him. You have simply helped him empathize with you.
When you are learning to speak and respond this way, do NOT use the word YOU in your statement. Do not say "YOU left the legos out and YOU hurt me" just focus on what happened. "When I step on Legos, it hurts and I cry" tells what happens and how it affects you personally and concretely. Try to make these statements without referring to the child himself with the word YOU. Because once you make the child feel small and humiliated or disrespected, you have activated a negative emotion in him that is now paired in a stimulus-response type conditioning. Instead of focusing on what he did wrong, he focuses on the negative feelings he is having. And that's what you get more of, negative feelings and behavior, because that is what you are focusing on.
After explaining the behavior, let the child find the solution to the problem.
DON'T TELL HIM WHAT TO DO OR GIVE HIM ADIVCE. Just say,
"I need to find a way to keep from hurting my feet. Can you think of a way that you can play with your Legos that would keep me from hurting my feet?"
Then BE QUIET and let him respond. Listen to his ideas, and let him pick one to try. He came up with the ideas and he chose the solution, and most of the time he will stick to it better because it was his own idea and nobody forced him to do something or punished him.
Giving advice, telling people what they should do, punishing, withdrawing attention or affection, or forcing someone to do something unpleasant all set up the situation in a way that FOCUSES ON WHAT YOU DON'T WANT. But the Law of Attraction says, what you focus on is what you get more of. So the more you can focus on what you DO want rather than the bad thing that happened, the more you will get that.
AND.....your child must ALWAYS know that no matter what they do, you are NEVER going to withdraw attention, affection, or respect from them, and you are NEVER going to yell at them or physically hurt them, and that you will always preserve their dignity and personhood. Never make them feel like they are wrong. Because this is NOT a value judgment. What they did was not WRONG, it was just unpleasant.
AND....when you make them feel they were wrong, you have made a value judgment. Would Jesus have gone up to the child and said "You shouldn't have left your Legos out?" No, that's not how Jesus did it. He never made people feel they were small. He always made them feel they were worthy. Even the woman caught in adultery, he lifted her up and affirmed her worth.
Many parents say, "It IS wrong for my children to disobey, I DO want them to feel this is wrong." Once again, you have made a value judgment that what you wanted was more important than what the child wanted. Neither is more important, neither is right while the other is wrong. They were just two behaviors that collided. Now we just have to figure out how for both people to get their needs met. One person does NOT have to win at the expense of the other. This is the fundamental error society has made. It doesn't have to be either/or. Everyone can have their needs met if we think respect rather than obedience. It's much more important for a child to learn that things can always be worked out so that both people get their needs met, than to make them feel that they always have to give in to other people simply because they are younger, smaller or weaker, or have less social standing.
Isn't that what most of the power struggles in the world are about - those who are bigger, stronger, richer, have more weapons or are more culturally or socially powerful, they try to force their will on the rest of the people who have the right to live their own way. So you can see how changing the way we approach every single fundamental human interaction can change the world.
SO - yes I AM saying that obedience training for children is not good and is fundamentally flawed both in practical , theoretical and spiritual terms.
Also, punishing people for crimes does NOT rehabilitate them or deter them from doing it again. Should we let them continue to hurt people? NO - but we don't have to punish them either. There are ways to rehabilitate people respectfully so that they won't commit the same crimes again. EFT - The Emotional Freedom Technique - is a wonderful rehabilitative tool .
So the point is, respect your children, your partners and spouses, your employees, and your neighbors. Don't take the opinion that if your child, partner or friend believes differently than you, that this is wrong. You shouldn't expect your child to follow in your footsteps, but instead to thoughtfully choose their own beliefs and respect the beliefs of others. If you are a Christian, you child does NOT have to become a Christian to be acceptable. If you are a Republican, your child can be a Libertarian and still be acceptable. If you are a husband, do not expect your wife to unconditionally submit to you. If you are government, do not punish you citizens for having ideas that differ from the beliefs and laws of the state. Let this TRULY be the land of the free and the home of the brave.
Wow what a mouth full!
But I agree with you...not so much on the religious points but yes we should respect each other. This is easier said than done but we can certainly try.
Interesting ideas. Yet these crimes and problems have existed in most cultures throughout human history. Very few have escaped them. While I certainly agree that there is no one way for all, I do think punishment has it's place. Let's leave out huge things like the death penalty. If someone steals from me (not food out of hunger but something superficial like a computer, in order to get drugs or money), abuses me, spreads rumours about me, or even just throws egg and toilet paper at my house, surely, that person must be punished in a suitable manner. All of these things have shown disrespect for me as a human being, so how could I, in turn, say that they're okay? You said that respect didn't mean leting people off the hook, but yet you're against punishments. So what should be done in these cases? I can't say that I was conditioned as it were by my parents. I certainly never felt the need to take back my self-respect. As a matter of fact, I was respected by them, even as a child, and was also taught how to give respect. Most times, I'll give a general respect towards others, but for my deepest version of that emotion, they must earn it. even once earned, it can be lost. Sorry, but if, to take much more serious things into account, I found out that a good friend of mine was a child molester or hurt animals, I sure as hell couldn't respect them in any form after that. If it was a matter of self-harm, then while I couldn't understand it, I wouldn't lose respect for my friend. I couldn't care what people do on their own time, whom they have sex with (so long as they're mentally-competent adults) and why they choose to do it, what they eat/drink, how they dress etc. I don't even mind what religion, or lack their of, someone follows, so long as he/she doesn't try to convert me. But when they start harming innocent people or animals, I draw the line. lol I could understand simply leaving them alone, if you want to avoid conflict, but doing good to those who persecute and/or harm you? Talk about a flaw in logic. so if someone beats me up, I should invite them out to the movies and ask for more? Your example works fine on most children but what about those children or adults who simply couldn't care less? I could tell someone that doing what they did has hurt me but it doesn't mean that they'll stop or be effected by it. that said, for those who are, I do agree that letting them think of a sollution is a good idea. It was very rare that I was told "say you're sorry". when I was, I said it, but in a way that made it very clear that I didn't mean it. Mom eventually learned to simply send me to my room to think about things. I almost always did and would come back to her and apologise on my own. I totally agree with your ideas on religion, politics, marriage and government. very well said on those accounts. No one should ever force people into those kinds of things, and especially if it's your family or loved ones, you should, barring some terrible crime or personal fall-out unrelated to these sorts of things, always love and respect them.
And that is all we're saying.
Actually I think this is a very interesting topic. I think you're somewhat missing the point though when you start throwing in specific examples of how you as an adult should interact with other adults.
I think what the writer is trying to get across here is that if you start with people from birth and treat them in this manor, then that in turn will bestow a set of values that will then be carried into adult life. So if you raise your children with these ideas in mind, in all likelihood they'll not grow up to become the kind of people that will steal from others, abuse others, throw egg and toilet paper at other people's houses and so on because during the period that they have been reared, you haven't emphasized their negative behavior and so in turn, that isn't a pattern of behavior that will recur in adult life.
I think to a certain degree though we as adults could be more understanding in certain situations and I do think it is saying that too, but from what I read the main thrust of the argument seemed to be that if everybody made efforts to nurture future generations in this way, that that would then become a cycle that would continue on and lead the world toward peace.
Granted it does sound a little wishy washy when you express it in those terms, but for me this isn't an argument without considerable merit.
Think of it this way, if you tell a child that 4 plus 4 equals 8, then they will eventually learn that that is the answer to 4 plus 4. However if you teach a child how to figure out that 4 plus 4 equals 8 then they can apply that knowledge to all multiplication problems and will be a better mathematician for it. This is just saying that life problems can be treated the same way. If you just tell somebody that something they're doing is wrong over and over then you are simply focusing on the negative. However if you explain how they're actions are impacting on others but don't apportion direct blame while doing so, they can then figure out for themselves how best to change their behavior.
It isn't really something I'd ever considered before but it makes a lot of sense to me.
Thank you Dan for sharing this.
Dan.
I certainly agree that, in a perfect world or a place where other influences weren't present, this idea would work very nicely to some degree. As you said, people would have the inclinations to do this. There are several cultures, the Bushmen come to mind here, where stealing and posession aren't issues. Everything belongs to everyone. I highly doubt that anyone in that culture would deliberately go and ruin the property of the village etc. just to be spiteful. They'd only be hurting themselves. Also, there's at least one culture, and I forget which right now, in which rape doesn't exist. Many egalitarian societies, or at least ones that aren't based on full agriculture or industry, have a greater respect for human beings and for nature. Unfortunately, these things start to change once ownership, wealth, greed, necessity to have currency to live, lack of parents being at home to take care of their children because of a need to accumulate money etc. are involved. Of course, saying that we should all give up our posessions and live off the land is ridiculous to most people, and I can't blame them. there must be some way to instill respect without giving up the things on which we, as humans in a modern age, depend. I strongly think that having at least one parent or guardian home for a child's first five years of life is a necessity. He/she needs to bond with the parent/guardian, to trust in him/her, to be able to learn from him/her etc. If no one is there, and the child is left in the care of others, I don't see how that bond could truly grow much less how true respect as we are discussing can ever be learned.
Oh yes good parentage is the key.
aa, harp and tiff get it right here. I think the original writing is making a point of what to strife for and how to view the world, not to apply directly to problems. The justice system is not just meant to punish, it is also meant to protect and there is often the need to protect society from a certain group or individual which is why we have punishments. I think these are not always meant for that person's own good, and sometimes it probably cannot be.
We don't live in a perfect world and we'll never be perfect people but we should strife towards perfection and keep the right mind set certainly.
Similarly, the notion of communism, I think, is a nice one, everyone is equal, owns enough and so on. I think it's hard to argue with the idea. But in practice people can never live in such a system, because we are driven by strife, by greed or ambition and we are inherently lazy (no offense to anyon), perhaps I should rephrase that and say we are conditioned to get maximum gain for minimum effort, which has been a survival technique.
Therefore, in such an economy, when you get paid the same for working 12 hours or 2, for doing a great job and a sloppy one, there is no incentive to perform and do well and things eventually fall apart.
I have to agree. That's why I'm a Socialist and not a Communist. *smile* some things, like education, transportation and healthcare, I think should have a strong governmental and a private form for those who can afford the latter, but others, like salaries, unless working directly for the government, should remain in the hands of the people.
I actually think that this philosophy is very possible to carry out, provided that a person, in a fit of anger, doesn't strike out. As for me, I find it much easier and much more rewarding to appologize for my own actions if the person to whom I am appologizing respects me in the same way, and would appologize for similar actions. I find it more difficult to respect people who have no respect for me. Even so, I try, because, as was mentioned in the article, punishing will really not get you too far in life if you are trying to teach a lesson worth learning. The respect, rather than punish philosophy is much easier said than done for a lot of people, I will admit, but if you can accomplish this consistently, I think the outcome will be a lot better for everyone involved.
If someone doesn't respect me I see no reason why I should even attempt to respect them. My job is not to teach. I treat people as they treat me and if they want to be treated with respect, then they shouldn't have disrespected me in the first place.
respect me and I'll respect you; don't respect me and that's fine...but you can't expect me to respect you, then.
I don't think it's a question of respect when you're an adult.
If someone shows me disrespect, it might mean that I choose not to associate with them or interact with them, but it doesn't mean that I don't respect them as a person and believe that they are deserving of their basic rights. It also doesn't mean that I might have a negative opinion of other people like them. Say if they were Asian, or catholic or something, that doesn't mean I'll judge all asians or catholics poorly because of that one encounter.
I think this is a great guide to parenting, and it's the sort of thing I'd follow if I were a mother. I remember someone telling me a story once of how they saw a mother strike her child because she ran into the street and could have been hit buy a car, and he told her that she shouldn't be hitting her, that she should instead be telling her that you love her, and emphasising that love to get through to the child that running into the street is dangerous because she might get hurt and if that happened, her mother would be very upset.
I believe society needs to be protected, but I believe this is an argument for the humaine treatment of others, no matter what they've done, as that sets an example to society also. For example There's an argument that prisoners should be treated much worse then they are. while I agree that so many privelages shouldn't be allowed, I also agree that everyone is entitled to their basic rights, no matter what they've done, and this means 3 meals a day, a bed, access to water and shelter. I also believe that they shouldn't be mistreated, and that the system should be a lot better than it is and prevent crimes inside.
The same goes for various cultural groups. Too much focus is placed today on making some cultural groups look bad to the majority. Islamic people have suffered most from this in my opinion. the solution is so simple, if people would just learn to treat the situation like it really is. it's not the majority of muslims that are like this, but a group of extremests who don't even take the opinion of the majority of muslims into mind when acting.
When you look at it that way, surely it's easier to respect and tolerate the majority?
time keeper,
in an ideal world what you say would definitely work. however, this isn't that place yet. if we start with the little babies coming up and teach them in your way hopefully things may improve. as a parent i always believed in the concept of discipline instead of punishmment. in the former, we teach the child that what they did is unacceptable by talking about it and working on a solution to solve the dilemma.
I think that in a lot of cases, the reason that some crimes are commited by certain people is because these people feel disrespected, and therefore, they have nothing else to lose, in their own opinions. If you lock them up for it, it's a vicious circle. Locking someone up is not showing them respect, and they will probably commit further crimes when they are released. I definitely believe in community service, because as the individual provides asistance to those in need, the appreciation of those people will probably make the individual feel worthwhile.
Tiff, if my views make me not a socialist than...well so be it.