Beyond the area of his expertise

I’d add to this that we can make people good or bad at things depending on the respect and opportunity we give them. There were very few good women doctors before we let women become doctors – now there are quite a lot of them – all down to the fact that women won respect and it enabled those talents to reach their potential.

Those who glory in the elites essentially you advocate hold back those whose social position they despite.

Personally, I despise them all, equally.

If he’d restricted the objection to the notion that respect for people entails respect for their opinions… (I “respect” Blackburn despite the disreputable opinion he expresses here.)

What a bizarre theory of human endeavor and accomplishment. It also doesn’t seem to occur to him that there might be a significant outcome bias (based on criteria of conspicuous “success”) in our judgments of excellence.

I read that article on Friday when I got the link in an email (as part of a running joke about management; the sender thought he had management spot on). I don’t see anything wrong with any of his points, though he seems to run out of steam toward the end.

He says, pretty unequivocally, that everyone deserves equal toleration. That’s perfectly sensible. It’s self evident that equal respect cannot be: respect, by definition, is extended to only a few people by each of us. Even Geras says, “In so far as we speak of equal respect, we usually mean respect for individuals as persons, for their humanity and for their rights in virtue of their human status.” ‘Toleration’ is a much more fitting word for that. No one is entitled to respect. You have to earn it. Duh. So Van Gogh etc were ‘entitled’ to none at all. And if you think Socrates had earned respect, maybe you read a different Plato from me.

But for all that, I use ‘respect’ as a much stronger word than you. I ‘respect’ excellence, and nothing less; CB clearly uses ‘respect’ for middling ability, so it’s a question of semantics.

I can’t even begin to imagine how to formulate a response to “the myth of democracy.”

(I’m pretty sure I didn’t imply we should ‘admir[e] those who manage… to achieve notoriety’…)

But with all due respect, surely we do ignore such people (from the culinary point of view, at least)?

No — at least I don’t ignore such people if I know them and there’s a possibility that I might find themselves at their table. If someone I know is a good cook, then I’ll respect them for it, even if their influence doesn’t extend beyond their immediate circle. I don’t usually get to eat cooking at Escoffier’s level anyway.

And Blackburn by his choice of examples makes it clear that he’s talking about respecting those around you. He says “I am lucky if my neighbours tolerate my singing when in the garden, but they would have to be tone deaf to respect it, and if they did then of course they in turn would forfeit my respect as music critics.” Which may be true because he (like me) is no good at all at singing. But if (like one of my colleagues) he were a good singer without rising to the level of Chaliapin or Louis Armstrong, then I would enjoy his singing when I had the chance to listen to it, and I would respect him for being a good singer.

He probably feels remarkably like me: gifted with intellect, blessed with supporive well-read parents, and what have I done? Nothing. A combination of emotional instability and the fact that I am convinced I never will contribute to society virtually guarantee that I will suffer economically, starve academically, and hate myself until I die.

has anyone here read darwall’s “two kinds of respect”?

blackburn’s right on here. i hardly think that he is advocating some sort of free-floating hatred or denigration of those who do not depart from the norm. and yes, there is such thing as a norm.

also, why does being nice to your friends, developing hobbies, and other stuff like that have to make one an expert? i’m a good cook, and i like to cook for friends. i enjoy basking in their praise. but in the end, i am probably barely better at cooking than the norm. so i’m no expert and i deserve no special respect for my cooking.

but what i think is really going on here is that you all are so afraid of not being the SO FREAKING AWESOME that any time someone comes along and speaks with authority gained from talent and/or hard work, you get scared that your FREAKING AWESOMENESS is being threatened and then you froth and moan.

‘to respect you for being a good cook’ s/b ‘to respect you for your cooking’…

(Not much matters on this but the “matt” in 17 above isn’t the “matt” who usually posts under that name here. That’s me. I tend to disagree with this “matt”. More importantly I capitalized more regularly and think the word “awesome” sounds stupid when used by anything other than a little kid, unless one is actually talking about something that inspires awe.

Re: 21 (what is the meaning of the @21 stuff?)

This is a reasonable position to take provided one applies it with consistency. Otherwise, it’s terr-ible, fright-fully silly, and fantas-tic. Less than marvel-ous, really.

And Blackburn by his choice of examples makes it clear that he’s talking about respecting those around you. He says “I am lucky if my neighbours tolerate my singing when in the garden, but they would have to be tone deaf to respect it, and if they did then of course they in turn would forfeit my respect as music critics.”

This is “respect” as defined by a successful white male academic who has a leafy garden in an affluent university town. If this point is to be valid he needs to acknowledge that most people are much more at the pointy end of respect. People of Middle Eastern Appearance, for instance. People who look poor. Overweight women.

I don’t get the definition of “respect” that seems to have overtaken this thread, either. I thought it was a principle pretty much based on not making assumptions of your own superiority, recognising the humanity of others who are different, and treating humans as an end rather than a means. I didn’t think they had to work up some kind of party trick to “earn” it.

And despite the commenter in #15, if you start life in an affluent society with supportive well read parents, you are likely to accumulate more and flashier party tricks as you go with less effort on your part.

Engels, of course it’s impossible to respect someone you’ve never heard of — so I’m not going to respect the ordinary good cooks and loving parents of East Devonshire or some other random place I’ve never been, just because I don’t know them. It looks like in #16 you’re saying that ordinary good cooks are worthy of respect, which I agree with (and as per #14 that the testimony of others can provide evidence for this but isn’t infallible).

I guess this goes back to Chris’s original talk about people who are “rated as” good cooks — what’s important there, I think, is not the rating, it’s whether they actually are good cooks even if they don’t rise to the level of Blackburn’s few elite. And it seems pretty clear to me that Blackburn means to denigrate everyone but the tippy top few; since he leaves no middle ground between respect and tolerance, and says that those who do not strive to be super-elite deserve to be ignored.

And of course Helen is right that everyone deserves respect just by virtue of being human. But even on Blackburn’s own terms his view is absurd.

I think the piece Chris linked to is intended to be a humorously opinionated rant, not an attack on modern civilisation.

If you look at this piece, where Blackburn deals with ‘respect’ at greater length, I think he says that everyone is entitled to respect in some sense, but that there is a ‘thicker’ sense in which they are not.

I don’t agree with all of his views about this, or sympathise with all of the piques he airs in this piece, but I am pretty sure he isn’t the far-right-wing ogre that people here are assuming he is. (And I think he might possibly have been aware of the contradiction you point out in #28…)

I think Blackburn could have found a better example than his singing. For instance, he could have instanced his views on global warming. Whilst amateurish and crankish in themselves, they would only be harmful if someone respected his views on science. Fortunately, we have plenty of reasons for either ignoring them or holding them in some contempt.

Did Blackburn really mean to sound as much of an insufferable prig and jackhole as he did with this statement? I don’t have much respect for him, or it.

How much respect and dignity was Van Gogh entitled to or Socrates or Jesus, for that matter?

None whatsoever, the bunch of losers.

It’s amazing I can even make it to work everyday when almost everybody on the road is a bad driver. It’s amazing that the are so many well-adjusted people around me when most of them must have had bad parents.

In fact, it’s surprising that there are many more malpractice lawsuits with so many bad doctors treating people. Must be all the bad laywers.

Jesus, he’s just an old crank, any London cabby comes up with stuff like this on a daily basis – why are we supposed to take this seriously?

To imposter matt and others who denigrate “awesome,” I must refer you to my personal role model, T-rex. He is an authority on language.

arguably it could not be otherwise

How would you argue that? It seems to me that things could be arranged to be very different.

Looking at the game as a whole, I’m going to score it Blackburn 2 – Myths 7. Blackburn’s critique of management went over the crossbar, but Myth was sent off for using ring-ins. The myth that there exists a general skill called management which works in any and all domains has been repeatedly refuted.

What a failure he must imagine himself to be!

Doesn’t take all that much imagination.

R-E-S-P-E-C-T
Find out what it means to me
R-E-S-P-E-C-T
Take care, TCB

– Aretha

Geez, it’s not like it’s hard or anything to work this out. If we don’t ‘little-r respect’ people, then we’re not even condescending to treat them as ethical subjects, as ends in themselves. But having offered that basic respect, we are entitled to withhold a more grounded ‘big-r respect’ for them as individuals based on their actions and attitudes.

Moreover, one might note that it is possible to acknowledge someone’s talents, in, say, the sporting or culinary areas, while also observing that they are a graceless, obnoxious scrote in other areas of their lives. Choose your own examples…

The myth that there exists a general skill called management which works in any and all domains has been repeatedly refuted.

I don’t agree with this and should probably write a post on the subject. (The kernel of my argument is that there definitely exists a deficit or negative skill called “disorganisation” which works in any and all domains).

It might be worth making the point that a very swift way to be disrespected is to make your skill a means for despising people who do not possess it. Education in the service of elitism is very often no education at all: it’s the promotion of ignorance about the lives and capacities of other people. If your learning leads you to loathe people who don’t possess your level of learning, how, in fact, does it benefit you, let alone anybody else?

Moreover it’s a completely unnecessary approach to take because many or most people will, I think, have great respect for great ability. Those who do not are ignroant and they can be ignored: ignorance is an attitude, not a quantity of knowledge.

I’m a decent standard chessplayer – in the top 300 English players, very good by the standard of the average players, almost magically good by the standards of the man in the street. But compared to Blackburn’s elite, I can barely pick up th pieces – the standard I’ve achieved is merely sufficient to give me an inkling as to how gooid the elite really are. My respect for them, therefore, isn’t just enormous: it’s made greater still my own small accomplishment. But if a leading chessplayer was to employ that difference to express contempt for me, for my abilities or for my worth as a person the respect would instantly disappear. And this isn’t at all unusual in the world of elite chess, or, indeed, among elites in general: once you’re in that position it can be very hard to consider other people as essentially your equals. It’s not about jealousy or about excessive egalitarianism, it’s about arrogance.

To follow up on Chris’s point, the suggestion that Darwall’s distinction offers a coherent line of defense for Blackburn’s position is quite flawed. As I understand it, the suggestion is that we should deny appraisal respect to those in our own communities who are better at things because we now live in a world where we have access to the knowledge that there are other people out there in the larger world who are even better. “I used to respect you as an excellent cook, but then I got The Food Network.” That seems like a transparently silly position for a number of fairly obvious reasons.

Continuing a theme from Eric’s post below, Simon Blackburn excels at bashing Heidegger. I’ve not seen anyone do it with a nicer style.

29/46/50/57: Honestly, I don’t think it makes a difference whether Blackburn is making a point that makes sense about “appraisal respect” versus “recognition respect.” He’s writing a popular piece, in a series whose stated purpose is to bring academic rigor to the popular audience. In such a piece, it’s just not appropriate to presuppose that his audience is going to understand that he’s only talking about one kind of respect and not another.

Will (41):
Actually, T-Rex’s creator is trained in something called “computational linguistics” (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_North), so you may be right.

There’s nothing patently ridiculous in calling into question the common sense view that there is a form of respect that is owed to all persons on the basis of ability not performance.

Why, for example, ought I respect someone for possessing a capacity “for moral reasoning…etc” rather than for making use of it? What, for example, has a total dimwit done to deserve greater respect than a zucchini or a fruitfly? (Or the fruitfly to deserve less?) (Of course, there are no _total_ dimwits, so in practice all humans merit some degree of respect for some degree of exercise of their rational capacity.)

Why should we assume it’s impossible for a person to justly lose all of my respect, indicating that a right to respect may not be essential to human nature? Indeed, if it is essential, what does it pick out, what work does it do? I.e., what does granting such respect involve, and what would failing to grant it look like?

If the answer is of the “treat as ends, not means” variety, I’d suggest this isn’t clearly an issue of respect, but treating things as what they are. A human should not be treated as a means because she IS an end, not because she “deserves” to be treated so.

In fact, the Kantian version to which many of these objections implicitly appeal is much more consistent. Kant demands we respect the humanity universally possessed by individuals, not the individual as such. On the contrary, the individual deserves respect only insofar as she acts from duty, thus exercising her autonomy–there’s no merit in merely having the capacity.

As for Blackburn’s claim that very few human beings are good at anything, I think he means this in the most unqualified sense (the same sense, e.g., that underlies Hobbes’ account of the state of nature), in which case it’s true. Measured in relation to abilities of the entire human population throughout human history (as opposed to, say, the best cook among my acquaintances), most “excellences” are minor to the point of triviality.

However, I’d add that such a big picture perspective exposes the silliness of the perfectionist obsession with “excellence” that Blackburn seems to share. Yes, very few humans are good at anything, but being good at anything in this exacting sense isn’t worth a whole hell of a lot–isn’t, so to speak, all that good.

qb,

I don’t disagree with the basic point of view you’ve presented, but can’t help but quibble with the implication that “treating person as ends” is the same as “respecting” them or seeing them as “entitled to respect.” It’s simply treating them as what they are, or acting in accordance with recognition of their nature, whereas respect seems to suggest an attribution of distinctive value (e.g., that a human being is intrinsically worth more than other creatures, or that one form of human behavior is more valuable than another, etc.).

I’ll accept that we should treat all human beings as human beings and that all human beings are entitled to be treated as human beings. But I think describing this as “respect” is misleading, because of its connotations of value. Hurka’s post identifies very well one way it misleads: into a conflation or confusion of recognition respect and appraisal respect.

But I don’t think that’s a mistake in judgment, but in the conception of “recognition respect.” I don’t see a close enough resemblance between these two kinds of behavior (treating a thing as the kind of thing it is vs. according it value, praiseworthiness and, possibly, moral responsibility) to call them both forms of “respect.”

This is relevant to Blackburn’s claims since he is surely, in part, complaining (rightly or wrongly) that we often give people more credit, or respect, than they deserve, and justify doing so out of an appeal to so-called recognition respect (“equal respect,” in his words). So, he is not objecting to treating ordinary persons who are not “good at anything” as ends rather than means, and consequently that cannot serve as the basis of an objection to his claims.

Shouldn’t some of the other claims in Blackburn’s piece be provoking more outrage? What about his assertions that:

#6) democracy is of no value anywhere outside of Europe [even in Canada?]
#8) celebrities have forfeit the right to ‘any respect at all’ [in contradiction to Article 8 of ECHR!]
#10) that ‘idea that sometimes people will do something because it is the right thing to do, not because it affords them any advantage’ is now a myth [unfairly denigrating all those who have ever helped old ladies across the road or returned lost wallets, among many others no doubt…]

On a strictly literal reading aren’t these are even more absurd, pathetically dumb, and dishonest than the one originally quoted?

Yes, one might almost think Blackburn was writing with humourous intent.

er… by pretending, or

Re: 69

Sure it’s a joke, but jokes are no laughing matter. (That’s meant as a joke.) Granted, it’s intended as a humorous piece, but that’s no reason we cannot critically evaluate the author’s implied views.

Re: 67

#8 seems non-controversial, while #6 is surely meant entirely in jest. I can’t imagine he would seriously except any democracy, much less England’s, from the charge.

I am having difficulty determining what views might be implied by #10. Perhaps it is something in the vein of J.S. Mill–we only pursue happiness for its own sake, but it is an achievement of social existence that virtue has been made into a part of our happiness, thus allowing us, in a roundabout way, to pursue virtue for its own sake. Blackburn’s plausible addition is to suggest that the political and economic ideology of egoism can undo this achievement.

For the record I agree with the sentiments expressed in #18, #55 and #56 above, of course. I’m just not sure that Blackburn wouldn’t either. It might be worth noting that the only example he gave of people who he considers unworthy of respect was celebrities, which makes it seem rather unlikely that he is advocating the veneration of worldly success…

As I understand it, the suggestion is that we should deny appraisal respect to those in our own communities who are better at things because we now live in a world where we have access to the knowledge that there are other people out there in the larger world who are even better. “I used to respect you as an excellent cook, but then I got The Food Network.” That seems like a transparently silly position for a number of fairly obvious reasons.

Isn’t this the experience a lot of people have when they start Uni? I think I did, with regard to appraisal-respect that had been directed at myself and probably my school friends too…

Also

(1) The very few human beings who are good at anything, whether football or playing the violin or writing or painting, form an elite and deserve respect for their excellence. (Blackburn)

arguably doesn’t imply that

(2) very few human beings … are good at anything (Chris’ post)

since (1) may mean that for any one thing–football, playing violin, …, …–very few people are good at it and they form an elite. But the total number of people in the union of all these sets–the number of people who are good at anything at all–must be much larger.

That would leave Blackburn able to allow (with the nice, respectful people here) that most people are good at something, while maintaining the strict reading of the paragraph Chris cites, provided that he could defend his claim that for any given thing, very few people are good at it (which I agree is still controversial…)

57,
” ‘I used to respect you as an excellent cook, but then I got The Food Network.’ That seems like a transparently silly position for a number of fairly obvious reasons.”

I don’t know that this is so obviously silly, since determining excellence is fundamentally comparative–as experience of cases to compare to expands, early evaluations tend to lower. Isn’t this the case with most aesthetic evaluations, and rightly so? If “excellent cook” means “best among my friends,” then this would make sense. But why would “excellent” = “best of an arbitrarily narrow group”?

76,
“Science is the study of facts and philosophy the study of values.” This is a highly eccentric view of philosophy. One way of thinking of philosophy is as the critical examination of common prejudices, in which case the column, despite significant faults, is surely in his field of expertise.

77,

“That would leave Blackburn able to allow (with the nice, respectful people here) that most people are good at something.” It would, but I suspect he doesn’t want that allowance. Part of his purpose seems to be to deflate our sense of self importance (though not so clearly his own). I’ll applaud his willingness to acknowledge most of us aren’t good at anything in a substantial enough way for it to merit general acknowledgement (sure, my friends should acknowledge I’m a good cook, but columnists and philosophers don’t need to), but it’s annoying that he doesn’t clearly include himself in this group. But wouldn’t it be equally annoying, somewhat kindergarteny and condscending, if he started with: “Now I know each of you are special in your own way, but…”

78,

“since (i assume) being a celebrity and being good at anything are not mutually exclusive.”

I think Blackburn’s intended joke is that he’s defining “celebrity” as one who is famous for no good reason, or famous for being famous, as is often the case these days, in which case celebrity is a strong indicator of being good at nothing in particular–since otherwise one would be famous for that ability. So, the implied meaning is, I believe, correct.

Wow, 76 is a really classic Edenbaum provocation.

Follow the bouncing ball:

First, the “playful” suggestion that CT readers are unlikely to follow his argument.

Science is the study of facts and philosophy the study of values.

Then the undergrad-profoud generality that purports to be the fundamental premise that everybody else has overlooked.

Conflating the two in favor of facts, values become assumed.

Then the simple error that all of us trapped in a pre-Edenbaumian liberal academic mindset mindlessly repeat.

Values assumed, all questions are seen as those of expertise. Terms of measurement- also assumed. Curiosity is defined by the frame, values by the frame, moral worth by the frame.
Democracy, the multiplicity of values and goals, is undermined.

Spice it up with the anti-intellectual resentment with which Seth peppers his stews by the handful (oh, those so-called “experts”! sniff) and finish with the shocking but now unavoidable conclusion that merely by participating in this discussion, we are undrmining the very politics we claim to support.

Blackburn’s is the linguistic and philosophical (formalist) corollary to Law and Economics.

Now, the turn — a polymathic shift to something totally unrelated, the connection to which only an Edenbaum could have seen. Yes, it sounds like random phrase-dropping, but that’s only because we’re too slow to follow the leaps and twirls of his mind.

I’ll remind you of the fun I had with Colin McGinn

And finally the little smug pat on his own back and reminder to the rest of us of how much we’re missing by not keeping up with the Edenbaum opus.

L Pitkin,
Was McGinn’s argument any less offense than Blackburn’s?

As some commenters above seem to realize, there is a genre that might be called the provocative squib (or something like that), to which this piece belongs. Wilde and Shaw were better at it, but that doesn’t mean Blackburn shouldn’t try his hand. Yes, one can subject his claims to telling criticisms (as some have), but basically I think it’s supposed to be funny and to show off the author’s ability to produce apposite quotations from Locke, Hume, etc. You read it quickly, laugh a couple of times (or not), and forget it. (Btw, I once happened to hear Blackburn give a serious talk to a small group of students. Completely different tone and persona than evident here.)

As some commenters above seem to realize, there is a genre that might be called the provocative squib

But as other commenters realize, saying “just joking!” does not grant blanket absolution for saying anything, however stupid or offensive.

Lighten up, everybody.

Blackburn is arrogant and disrespectful. So is McGinn. So is Tyler Cowen

Well, fine. But you’re talking to them here. You’re talking to *us*.

abb1, this is serious business. analyzing Blackburn’s offhand foolishness is the Lord’s own work! i remain stubbornly committed to not having any fun.

seth also remains committed to not having any fun.

I take it back I take it back!
Now that I read the thing, thanks to DD, it’s funny. He contradicts himself,he “gives the game away” and his attitude can be boiled down to “I’m always right, and even when I’m wrong I’m right!”
He’s not hiding behind anything: his subjectivism, if not outright irrationalism, is front and center. There’s honesty in that, even or especially if as seems to be the case he “believes” everything he says. Just like Camille Paglia but better. There’s no technocratic false neutrality. I’ll happily defend him, just like I defend TS Eliot and Philip Larkin.

Maybe they’ll give him a job in Paris.