It seems to me that "respect for authority" is an inappropriate value in a democracy/republic. Nobody should respect authority per se as all authority is merely delegated from the citizens. In fact, what should be instilled is respect for the citizens so that those with the delegated authority recognize for whom they work.
+ 1 With the phrase "respect for authority," I can't help but think of the Milgram experiments. See http://nature.berkeley.edu/ucce50/ag-lab... I think we need less "respect for authority," and more reliance on our own individual authority, our own common sense and values.
Those experiments do not exhibit "respect for authority" but rather lack of personal thinking and responsibility. Had the individuals actually thought, they never would have performed the actions of the "authority figure." Same thing with the military. They are only obligated to obey legal orders. It is still up to the individual soldier to decide whether or not that threshold has been met. If not, and they still obey, they face the same charges as those giving the orders. Obeyance of orders is not a defense.
How would you define "respect for authority"? If it means to you nothing more than following your own conscience regardless of what an authority figure says, I do not think that's the standard definition. If it was, we would have no phrase like "respect for authority," and would be focusing on each individual's responsibility to develop and honor good values. Rather, having "respect for authority" implies that you must obey the expert or authority figure, regardless of your own thoughts and opinions.
"Respect for authority" means acknowledging that the person has status above and power over you, and that you owe obedience. This standard definition of "respect for authority" is most definitely demonstrated by the Milgram experiments. The first two sentences of the link I sent make it clear: "Why is it so many people obey when they feel coerced? Social psychologist Stanley Milgram researched the effect of authority on obedience."
But they "knew" that they were hurting another human. If they had thought for themselves, that should have gone against their morality and they should have stopped.
Respect for authority does not mean handing over your ability to think. It means that that authority has some reason for the authority - position, knowledge, power - thus, you should accede to their authority unless reason points otherwise.
Whether you want to call it respect for authority, deference to authority, fear of authority, and/or obedience to authority, the Milgram experiments demonstrated that most people have far too much of it. They have so much respect for authority, they're simply not capable of thinking for themselves in such a situation. Therefore, the idea that we need more respect for authority, but also simultaneously need to convince people to think for themselves and take responsibility for their actions, seems complicated to the point of impossibility, and even rather contradictory to me.
So in the military one might argue that respect for authority is important. However that only makes my point MORE valid for the rest of the populace. We should not be militarizing the citizenry. That is the basic model for progressivism which they got early on by viewin the Prussian state under Bismark.
For civilians, the person in authority might deserve respect because they have earned it. But I question the whole "respect for the office" idea among civilians. I need have zero respect for the office of the president if I do not think that the president has respect for my rights as an individual citizen. His office is actually nothing without my (our) delegation of powers to him.
I take the opposite tack - I start with an assumption that someone deserves respect, unless/until they show that they do not. Starting from a position that one must "earn" respect is disrespectful in the first place, in my humble opinion. I do respect the "office" until the person occupying the office demonstrates that they don't deserve such respect, then I have no problem treating them in the way they have shown they deserve, regardless of office.
I take a third position -- observe the behavior of the person and then decide. An "office" deserves neither respect nor disrespect. To my mind only individuals are deserving of either.
It is impossible to start in a position of neutrality. You either start with a position of disrespect until the person "earns" that respect, or you start in a position of respect until that person loses same. My suspicion is that you are of the latter persuasion.
I suppose that depends on what one means by "disrespect". "Disrespect" seems to carry a negative connotation. Your point is well taken given the "either or" nature of "respect / disrespect". My "neutrality" point of view stems of course from the "negative connotation". There exist many people that I "know of" but have insufficient knowledge about them to either respect or disrespect them. For me to say I respect them would be just as misleading as to say I disrespect them.
The fall of the Roman Empire. The United States. Way too many parallels.
NO morals, family values gone, government spending and the threat of bankruptcy, constant wars and military actions, POOR EDUCATION, I could go on and on. Every time there is a push to retrieve these values, the liberals want to shove us further down the drain of depravity.
In Chaos and Anarchy they can rise to power. It is all about power, and tyranny. their control over other.
They (Liberals) call that Liberty. But as Abraham Lincoln said in a speech, Liberty for some is the freedom to do with your product what you wish, for them Liberty is the freedom to do with YOUR labor and person what they wish.
There are only a "few" liberals in charge now, and look what happened. Obamacare, USA nearly bankrupt, majority of Americas on some for of Assistance "program", and Social Security you PAID for, and you also paid for Medicare from your salaries. And your right. Margret Thatcher hinted at that in one of her famous quotes. "Capitalism is the unequal distribution of wealth, and Socialism is the equal distribution of misery.
Some of the history is portrayed in a negative light... It is not the unvarnished history that should be of concern or the portrayal of America as a generally (though not perfect) benevolent and righteous nation. In relative terms this is the truth. It is the portrayal and slanting of it being generally an evil empire that should concern. This has been the recent problem. Although one could argue that recent events could one day be righteously viewed in such a light.
+1. History MUST take into proper context the values and practices of the day, which is why it is so easy to present it in a biased view. It really takes a lot of effort to actually put one's self into the position of someone who lived in the past because it means recognizing how that is different from today.
What do you see, everyone? I see a student body determined to keep a lie, agreed-upon, in history classes today. They seem to think they know everything. But much of what they "know" is wrong.
Exactly. I see a concerted effort by government school systems to teach only a "party line" view of history and to leave out all facts that might embarrass government people or show that they did wrong.
Centralized public education has at its heart the intention to mold young minds with the propaganda devised by those who currently hold power. I am in favor of exposing the skeletons in the closets of all the empires that have imposed their will by force. However this must be counter-balanced by the honest reporting of all the good that was done under those regimes. To expect any powerful central system of education to do this without bias is naive folly.
It should mean questioning the derivation of authority. If the authority is granted via the Constitution and its intent, it should be granted and respected under those auspices. If the authority is extra-Constitutional, we have the right to deny the claim to authority in the first place.
By downplaying or even eliminating civil disobedience and including respect for authority in reference to patriotism and citizenship, it appears that we're attempting to propagandize good little 'brown shirts'.
I see it as exactly the opposite. The lefty collectivists have imprinted their slanted views of US history so successfully that when a more balanced perspective is proposed, the teachers and students rebel. It's time to take back the education system from the collectivists.
The history of this country is replete with civil disobedience and lack of respect for authority. Remember the Boston Tea Party and the Lexington Green? You think that redacting those events from school history texts is a more balanced perspective?
You and I often disagree on various topics, but I find your comment here to be just too out there. I want ALL of our history taught--the good and the bad as well as the causes of each and the results and consequences.
I doubt very strongly that those would be the items left out. Rather the white involvement in the civil rights movement, the fact that it was the repubs that enacted equal rights legislation, the advancements that the likes of Carnegie, Ford, Vanderbilt, etc. had to the development of the US. Instead the curriculum will focus on Jackson's oppression of the Indians (while true, it is not the only aspect of the development of the US), how the US is an imperialistic nation (untrue), that the US has caused more suffering and pollution than any other nation, that whites today should feel guilty for past slavery, etc., etc., etc.
The rest of the story is that the testing board has acknowledged that the school board is correct and their test standards slant the history in an unfavorable light for the US and they are going to change it. These kids are pawns for the teachers union, which is a pawn itself for the collectivists.
And you expected the progressive ideologues, and their lackey, who teach, some of whom I know, to just lie back and take any attempt to refute their progressive mantra of divide and conquer?
I question the validity of the "conservative majority" on the school board. It sounds from the article as if they are wanting to make it so authority is not questioned. When I was in school back in the 60's, I learned both the good and the bad. I was fascinated with the westward expansion of our country. How it was done, how it affected the native population and who the predominate players were. Of course in that era, I was also captivated by the space exploration and science. It helped that my uncle worked for a major computer company and was on loan to NASA, so I got up close and personal with some of the players in that expansion. On the science side it was nuclear, both explosions (bombs) and unlimited power generation. I participated in the generation side as a Navy Nuclear Operator. But again, the good and the bad came out in my studies. Overall, my training was varied and in some aspects, exotic. But I always kept and modified my ideals and it made great impressions on my conscious and subconscious mind. I feel these kids are right to protest and make their ideals known and hopefully impact the school board's decision.
These kids are too young and do not have sufficient experience to make such decisions for themselves.
I don't think this is a proposal to make authority unquestioned, but rather to change the viewpoint of US history from being one of imperialism to a more realistic perspective.
"Respect for authority" means acknowledging that the person has status above and power over you, and that you owe obedience. This standard definition of "respect for authority" is most definitely demonstrated by the Milgram experiments. The first two sentences of the link I sent make it clear: "Why is it so many people obey when they feel coerced? Social psychologist Stanley Milgram researched the effect of authority on obedience."
Respect for authority does not mean handing over your ability to think. It means that that authority has some reason for the authority - position, knowledge, power - thus, you should accede to their authority unless reason points otherwise.
Authority deserves respect, so long as it deserves respect.
For civilians, the person in authority might deserve respect because they have earned it. But I question the whole "respect for the office" idea among civilians. I need have zero respect for the office of the president if I do not think that the president has respect for my rights as an individual citizen. His office is actually nothing without my (our) delegation of powers to him.
NO morals, family values gone, government spending and the threat of bankruptcy, constant wars and military actions, POOR EDUCATION, I could go on and on. Every time there is a push to retrieve these values, the liberals want to shove us further down the drain of depravity.
They (Liberals) call that Liberty. But as Abraham Lincoln said in a speech, Liberty for some is the freedom to do with your product what you wish, for them Liberty is the freedom to do with YOUR labor and person what they wish.
I think this is a backlash against those who have achieved. Those who do not do not care to have more, they just want those who do to be brought down.
If you can't homeschool your kids, I would at least fight back by giving them books to read that fill in the gaps, such as:
http://www.amazon.com/Lies-My-Teacher-To...
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/15...
Centralized public education has at its heart the intention to mold young minds with the propaganda devised by those who currently hold power.
I am in favor of exposing the skeletons in the closets of all the empires that have imposed their will by force. However this must be counter-balanced by the honest reporting of all the good that was done under those regimes.
To expect any powerful central system of education to do this without bias is naive folly.
You and I often disagree on various topics, but I find your comment here to be just too out there. I want ALL of our history taught--the good and the bad as well as the causes of each and the results and consequences.
the opportunity presents itself!!! -- j
The rest of the story is that the testing board has acknowledged that the school board is correct and their test standards slant the history in an unfavorable light for the US and they are going to change it. These kids are pawns for the teachers union, which is a pawn itself for the collectivists.
I don't think this is a proposal to make authority unquestioned, but rather to change the viewpoint of US history from being one of imperialism to a more realistic perspective.