essay about respect and trust

May 4, 2023

Essays on Respect: Delving into the Core Values and Implications for Society

Respect is not just a word, it's a powerful force that can change the world. Struggling to write an essay on respect? These examples are here to guide you!

Have you ever noticed how a simple act of respect, like holding the door open for someone or saying 'thank you,' can brighten someone's day and make the world feel a little kinder? Respect is a fundamental value that we all need to thrive, yet it can sometimes feel in short supply in our fast-paced, competitive world. 

That's why in this series of essays, we're diving deep into the topic of respect: what it means, why it matters, and how we can cultivate it in our daily lives. We'll explore the power of reverence, examining how showing respect can be a transformative act that creates connection, understanding, and empathy. We'll also delve into the role of respect in relationships, discussing how treating others with dignity and kindness can be a foundation for healthy connections and flourishing communities. And, of course, we'll discuss the practical applications of respect, including how it can enhance communication and lead to more productive, satisfying interactions. 

By the end of this blog post, we hope you'll come away with a renewed appreciation for the value of respect and a host of tools and strategies for practicing it in your daily life. Join us on Jenni.ai to learn more and gain access to a wealth of resources for essay writing and more. Let's dive in!

Examples of Essays on Respect

The Importance of Respect in Building Healthy Relationships

Respect is an essential ingredient for any healthy relationship to thrive. When two people treat each other with respect, they can build a strong and lasting bond that withstands the test of time. Respect is not just about being polite or courteous to one another, but it's also about acknowledging and appreciating each other's unique qualities and differences. In this article, we'll explore the importance of respect in building healthy relationships and how it can help you maintain a happy and fulfilling connection with your partner.

What is respect?

Respect is a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements. In the context of relationships, respect means treating your partner with dignity, recognizing their worth, and valuing their opinions and feelings. It involves listening to them, being considerate of their needs, and acknowledging their boundaries.

Why is respect important in relationships?

Respect is the foundation on which healthy relationships are built. Without respect, a relationship can quickly deteriorate into a toxic and unhealthy dynamic where one partner dominates the other or both partners constantly belittle each other. Respect is what allows two people to trust each other, communicate effectively, and build a strong emotional connection. Here are some reasons why respect is crucial in building healthy relationships:

It fosters trust and intimacy

When two people respect each other, they can trust each other to be honest and transparent. This trust allows them to open up and be vulnerable with each other, leading to a deeper emotional connection and intimacy. Trust and intimacy are essential for any healthy relationship to thrive, and respect is the foundation on which they are built.

It promotes effective communication

Respectful communication involves listening actively, being mindful of each other's feelings, and avoiding hurtful language or behaviors. When two people communicate respectfully, they can resolve conflicts in a constructive and healthy manner, leading to a stronger and more fulfilling relationship.

It builds a sense of safety and security

When two people respect each other, they feel safe and secure in each other's company. They know that they can rely on each other and that their partner will always have their back. This sense of safety and security is essential for building a healthy and long-lasting relationship.

It helps to maintain individuality

Respect is not just about acknowledging your partner's worth, but also about respecting their individuality and unique qualities. When two people respect each other, they can appreciate each other's differences and allow each other to grow and develop as individuals. This helps to maintain a healthy balance between dependence and independence in the relationship.

How to show respect in a relationship?

Showing respect in a relationship involves a combination of behaviors and attitudes. Here are some ways you can show respect to your partner:

Listen actively

One of the most important ways to show respect is to listen actively to your partner. This means paying attention to what they are saying, asking questions, and responding with empathy and understanding.

Be considerate of their feelings

Respect also means being considerate of your partner's feelings. Avoid saying or doing things that might hurt them or make them feel uncomfortable.

Acknowledge their achievements

Respect involves acknowledging and appreciating your partner's achievements and successes. Celebrate their accomplishments and encourage them to pursue their goals and dreams.

Respect their boundaries

Respect also means respecting your partner's boundaries. Avoid pressuring them to do things they are uncomfortable with and always seek their consent before engaging in any intimate activities.

Avoid criticizing or belittling them

Respectful communication also involves avoiding hurtful language or behaviors. Avoid criticizing or belittling your partner, and instead focus on expressing your concerns in a constructive and respectful manner.

Show appreciation and gratitude

Showing appreciation and gratitude is another important way to demonstrate respect in a relationship. Let your partner know that you value and appreciate them, and express your gratitude for the things they do for you.

Be honest and transparent

Honesty and transparency are crucial components of respectful communication. Be truthful with your partner, and avoid hiding things from them or being deceitful in any way.

Take responsibility for your actions

Respect also means taking responsibility for your actions and acknowledging when you make mistakes. Apologize when you've done something wrong, and work together with your partner to find a solution.

How to handle disrespect in a relationship?

Disrespectful behavior can have a significant impact on a relationship and can quickly lead to conflict and tension. Here are some ways to handle disrespect in a relationship:

Communicate your concerns

The first step in addressing disrespect in a relationship is to communicate your concerns to your partner. Let them know how their behavior is making you feel, and work together to find a solution.

Set boundaries

Setting boundaries is an important part of respecting yourself in a relationship. Let your partner know what you will and won't tolerate, and be prepared to enforce these boundaries if necessary.

Seek outside help

If you're struggling to handle disrespect in your relationship, consider seeking outside help from a therapist or counselor. They can provide you with the tools and support you need to navigate the situation.

Respect is an essential ingredient for building healthy and fulfilling relationships. When two people treat each other with respect, they can develop a strong emotional connection based on trust, intimacy, and mutual appreciation. By listening actively, being considerate of each other's feelings, and communicating respectfully, you can show your partner that you value and respect them. Remember that respect is a two-way street, and it's essential to treat your partner the way you would like to be treated.

Cultivating Respect: Strategies for Fostering a Culture of Civility

Respect is a fundamental aspect of human interactions. It is essential to creating a positive and productive workplace culture. Unfortunately, respect is often in short supply in many organizations, leading to negative outcomes such as high turnover rates, low employee engagement, and poor job satisfaction. In this article, we will explore strategies for cultivating respect in the workplace to foster a culture of civility.

Introduction

The workplace is a complex environment that involves the interaction of various individuals with diverse backgrounds and personalities. This diversity often results in conflicts that can negatively impact the work environment. Therefore, fostering a culture of civility is critical to ensuring a healthy and productive workplace. Civility refers to respectful behavior and polite communication, even in situations where there is disagreement or conflict.

The Importance of Respect in the Workplace

Respect is vital to creating a positive and productive work environment. It promotes employee engagement, job satisfaction, and overall well-being. Respectful interactions also encourage collaboration, creativity, and innovation. When employees feel respected, they are more likely to share ideas, provide feedback, and take risks.

Strategies for Fostering a Culture of Civility

Lead by Example: The behavior of leaders sets the tone for the entire organization. Leaders should model respectful behavior and communicate clear expectations for civility in the workplace.

Communication: Encourage open and honest communication by creating a safe and supportive environment. Ensure that all employees have an opportunity to share their thoughts and ideas.

Education: Provide training on conflict resolution, effective communication, and cultural awareness. This will equip employees with the necessary skills to navigate difficult conversations and work collaboratively with diverse individuals.

Policies and Procedures: Establish clear policies and procedures for addressing conflicts and promoting respectful behavior. Ensure that all employees are aware of these policies and understand the consequences of violating them.

Recognition: Recognize and reward employees who demonstrate respectful behavior and contribute to a positive work environment. This will encourage others to follow suit and foster a culture of civility.

Challenges and Solutions

Cultivating respect and promoting civility in the workplace is not always easy. There are several challenges that organizations may face, including resistance to change, lack of resources, and differing perspectives. However, these challenges can be overcome by implementing the following solutions:

Address Resistance: Address resistance to change by communicating the benefits of cultivating respect and promoting civility. Explain how it will benefit the organization, employees, and customers.

Allocate Resources: Allocate the necessary resources to promote respectful behavior, such as training programs, policies and procedures, and recognition programs.

Understand Differences: Encourage employees to understand and respect cultural and individual differences. This will help to foster an environment of inclusivity and respect.

Cultivating respect and promoting civility in the workplace is essential to creating a positive and productive work environment. It requires leadership, communication, education, policies, and recognition. Organizations that prioritize respect and civility will benefit from increased employee engagement, job satisfaction, and overall well-being. By implementing the strategies discussed in this article, organizations can create a culture of civility that fosters respect, collaboration, and innovation.

In conclusion, cultivating respect and promoting civility in the workplace is critical to creating a positive and productive work environment. It requires the commitment and effort of all employees, starting with leadership. By implementing the strategies discussed in this article, organizations can create a culture of civility that fosters respect, collaboration, and innovation. By doing so, they will benefit from increased employee engagement, job satisfaction, and overall well-being, leading to greater success and growth.

Understanding Empathy: The Key to Building Respectful Connections

Empathy is the ability to understand and share the feelings of others. It is a powerful tool that helps us connect with people and build healthy relationships. In this article, we will explore the meaning of empathy, its importance in building respectful connections, and how to cultivate empathy in our daily lives.

What is Empathy?

Empathy is the ability to understand and share the feelings of others. It involves putting yourself in someone else's shoes and seeing the world from their perspective. Empathy helps us connect with people and build healthy relationships by creating a sense of mutual understanding and respect.

The Different Types of Empathy

There are three different types of empathy: cognitive empathy, emotional empathy, and compassionate empathy.

Cognitive Empathy

Cognitive empathy is the ability to understand someone's thoughts and feelings intellectually. It involves seeing the world from their perspective and understanding their needs and concerns.

Emotional Empathy

Emotional empathy is the ability to share someone's feelings and emotions. It involves feeling what they feel and experiencing their emotions alongside them.

Compassionate Empathy

Compassionate empathy is the ability to feel someone's emotions and take action to help them. It involves understanding their needs and concerns and taking steps to address them.

How to Cultivate Empathy

Cultivating empathy requires practice and effort. Here are some strategies you can use to cultivate empathy in your daily life:

Active Listening

Active listening involves fully concentrating on what someone is saying and actively engaging with them. It involves asking questions, providing feedback, and demonstrating that you are fully present and engaged.

Putting Yourself in Someone Else's Shoes

Putting yourself in someone else's shoes involves imagining how they are feeling and seeing the world from their perspective. It involves suspending judgment and taking the time to understand their needs and concerns.

Practicing Self-Reflection

Practicing self-reflection involves taking the time to reflect on your own thoughts and feelings. It involves being honest with yourself about your biases and assumptions and actively working to challenge them.

Practicing Empathy Exercises

Practicing empathy exercises involves actively seeking out opportunities to practice empathy. These exercises may involve volunteering, practicing active listening, or engaging in role-playing activities.

Empathy is a crucial tool for building respectful connections with others. It allows us to understand and share the feelings of others, creating a sense of mutual understanding and respect. By practicing empathy in our daily lives, we can build stronger relationships, enhance our communication skills, and improve our overall well-being.

Respect and Communication: How Listening and Dialogue Can Build Bridges

Communication is the foundation of any relationship, be it personal or professional. However, communication isn't just about talking; it also involves listening actively and with respect. In this article, we will explore how respect and communication can build bridges and help create strong relationships.

Definition of communication

Importance of communication

Communication challenges

Building Bridges through Communication

Communication is a powerful tool that can be used to create and maintain bridges between people. By communicating effectively, we can connect with others on a deeper level and build trust and respect. Here are some ways to build bridges through communication:

Active listening is the key to effective communication. When we listen actively, we give the other person our undivided attention, and we try to understand their perspective without interrupting or judging them.

Empathy is the ability to understand and share the feelings of another person. When we empathize with others, we put ourselves in their shoes, and we try to see things from their perspective. This helps us to communicate more effectively and build stronger relationships.

Respect is essential in any relationship. When we respect others, we treat them with dignity and honor their views and opinions, even if we disagree with them. This creates a safe space for communication and encourages people to share their thoughts and feelings openly.

Open Communication

Open communication is critical for building bridges. When we communicate openly, we share our thoughts and feelings honestly and transparently, and we encourage others to do the same. This helps to build trust and creates a deeper connection between people.

Communication Challenges

Effective communication isn't always easy, and there are many challenges that can arise. Here are some of the most common communication challenges:

Language Barriers

Language barriers can make communication difficult, especially when there are cultural differences. It's essential to be patient and to try to understand the other person's perspective, even if there are language barriers.

Emotional Triggers

Emotions can often get in the way of effective communication. When we feel triggered, we may become defensive or angry, which can create a barrier to communication. 

Power Imbalances

Power imbalances can make communication difficult, especially in a professional setting. When one person has more power or authority than the other, it can be challenging to communicate effectively. 

Effective communication is critical for building bridges and creating strong relationships. By listening actively, empathizing, showing respect, and communicating openly, we can overcome communication challenges and build bridges that last. Remember to be patient, kind, and understanding, and always approach communication with an open mind and heart.

The Power of Reverence: How Respect Can Shape Our Lives

Respect is an essential aspect of our lives that plays a crucial role in shaping our personalities and building meaningful relationships. When we show respect to others, we create a positive environment that allows everyone to thrive. The power of reverence goes beyond basic etiquette; it influences our behavior, decisions, and outlook on life. In this article, we will explore the importance of respect and how it can shape our lives.

Understanding Respect

Respect is defined as a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements. It is an attitude that acknowledges the worth of another person or thing. Respect is a fundamental aspect of human interaction that creates a positive environment for everyone. It is essential in building trust, maintaining healthy relationships, and promoting cooperation.

Respect in Personal Relationships

Respect is an essential ingredient in creating meaningful personal relationships. It is the foundation on which all relationships are built. When we show respect to our partners, friends, and family members, we create an environment of trust, empathy, and mutual understanding. Respect allows us to communicate effectively, express our opinions, and solve conflicts in a healthy manner. It is also the key to maintaining healthy boundaries and creating a safe space for everyone involved.

Respect in Professional Relationships

Respect is equally important in professional relationships. It is the key to building trust, fostering collaboration, and creating a positive work environment. When we show respect to our colleagues, supervisors, and subordinates, we promote teamwork, productivity, and job satisfaction. Respectful communication allows for the sharing of ideas, constructive feedback, and the creation of a supportive work culture.

The Benefits of Respect

The power of reverence has numerous benefits that can positively impact our lives. Respect promotes empathy, understanding, and cooperation, allowing us to build healthy relationships with others. It creates a positive environment that fosters personal and professional growth, leading to increased productivity, job satisfaction, and overall well-being. Showing respect also improves our self-esteem, allowing us to feel more confident and empowered.

The Consequences of Disrespect

On the other hand, disrespect can have severe consequences that negatively impact our lives. Disrespectful behavior can damage relationships, erode trust, and create a hostile work environment. It can lead to misunderstandings, conflicts, and even legal issues in extreme cases. Disrespectful behavior can also damage our self-esteem, leading to feelings of inadequacy and insecurity.

Cultivating Respect

Cultivating respect is an ongoing process that requires mindfulness and conscious effort. It involves acknowledging the worth of others, recognizing their contributions, and treating them with dignity and kindness. Cultivating respect also means recognizing our own worth and treating ourselves with kindness and compassion. When we cultivate respect, we create a positive environment that allows everyone to thrive.

In conclusion, the power of reverence is an essential aspect of our lives that can positively impact our personal and professional relationships. Respect allows us to build healthy relationships, promotes empathy and understanding, and fosters personal and professional growth. It is the key to creating a positive environment that allows everyone to thrive. Cultivating respect is an ongoing process that requires mindfulness and conscious effort, but the benefits are worth it.

In conclusion, these essays have explored the multifaceted concept of respect, examining its core values and societal implications. We have seen how respect can foster healthy relationships, promote empathy and understanding, and facilitate productive communication. Through examples from literature, history, and contemporary events, we have gained insights into the power of reverence and the importance of cultivating a culture of civility.

If you are a student looking to improve your essay writing skills, Jenni.ai can help. With our AI-powered tools and resources, you can streamline your writing process, generate new ideas, and refine your work for maximum impact. Sign up for a free trial today to discover the benefits of Jenni.ai and take your writing to the next level.

Try Jenni for free today

Create your first piece of content with Jenni today and never look back

25,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today

Meet top uk universities from the comfort of your home, here’s your new year gift, one app for all your, study abroad needs, start your journey, track your progress, grow with the community and so much more.

Verification Code

An OTP has been sent to your registered mobile no. Please verify

Thanks for your comment !

Our team will review it before it's shown to our readers.

• Essay Writing /

Essay on Respect: Best Samples Available for Students

• Updated on  
• Nov 7, 2023

Essay on Respect: Mahatma Gandhi once said, ‘I cannot conceive of a greater loss than the loss of one’s self-respect.’ We all deserve respect from others when they interact with us, regardless of how we are as individuals. Polite, considerate and courteous behaviour are all part of respect. Respect is a larger concept which encompasses treating others the way you would like to be treated, listening to different viewpoints with an open mind, and refraining from causing harm or offence to others. It is considered a fundamental aspect of healthy relationships, effective communication, and a harmonious society. Let’s discuss more through some samples in the essay on respect.

Table of Contents

• 1 Essay on Respect in 100 Words
• 2 Essay on Respect in 200 Words
• 3 Essay on Respect in 300 Words

Also Read: World Sight Day Activities to Plan for Your School

Essay on Respect in 100 Words

Respect is a two-way concept; you receive respect when you show respect to others. Whether you are in a professional or a personal environment, talking respectfully is always appreciated. Respect is not just talking politely but a profound acknowledgement of the dignity of others. 

Respect involves listening to others with an open mind, appreciating the uniqueness of everyone, and refraining from actions that cause harm or undermine the well-being of others. We can consider respect as a timeless virtue. It is necessary for maintaining healthy relationships, communities, and societies. From the way we talk to the way we behave, respect is highlighted in our every move.

Also Read: Essay on Parents

Essay on Respect in 200 Words

‘Respect is what we owe; love, is what we give.’ – Philip James Bailey

How can you expect others to respect you when you cannot serve it to others? We never disrespect people whom we care about. Neither do they. As humans when interacting with others, we expect respectful behaviour from others. It is considered the fundamental aspect of binding human interactions and enabling us to live in harmony with others. 

We can acknowledge and appreciate people, which is one of the most important parts of respectful behaviour. At its essence, respect transcends cultural barriers and fosters empathy, understanding, and kindness among individuals.

Respect is shown via thoughtful actions and considerate behaviour. It involves treating others with courtesy, refraining from causing harm and valuing diverse perspectives. When one respects another person, one listens attentively, seeking to understand rather than to judge. This practice nurtures a culture of open communication and mutual understanding, facilitating the resolution of conflicts and the forging of strong, enduring relationships.

Our respectful attitude and behaviour cultivate a sense of belonging and safety in social settings. In school, respect forms the basis for effective learning and growth. The respectful behaviour of teachers and students fosters an atmosphere of trust and collaboration, nurturing an environment where knowledge is shared, and intellectual curiosity is encouraged.

Essay on Respect in 300 Words

‘Respect your efforts, respect yourself. Self-respect leads to self-discipline. When you have both firmly under your belt, that’s real power.’ – Clint Eastwood

Respect functions as the cornerstone of considerate and empathetic human interaction, forming the basis for a harmonious and equitable society. What we learn is what we say to others. Our respectful behaviour shows our inherent value and dignity. It also fosters empathy, understanding, and compassion, nurturing relationships that are founded on mutual admiration and consideration.

Showing a passive attitude that reflects in one’s behaviour and treatment of others shows who we really are. It entails treating individuals with dignity and kindness, valuing their perspectives, and honouring their rights and boundaries. When one demonstrates respect, they engage in thoughtful communication, listen attentively, and seek to understand differing viewpoints. Such actions lay the groundwork for trust and cooperation, facilitating the resolution of conflicts and the cultivation of strong, enduring bonds.

There are three types of respect: Respect for Personhood; Respect for Authority; and Respect for Honour.

• Respect for personhood is the recognition and acknowledgement of the inherent dignity, autonomy, and worth of every individual. This concept emphasizes the importance of treating each person as a unique and valuable being, deserving of ethical consideration and moral regard.
• Respect for authority acknowledges the legitimacy and position of individuals or institutions that hold power or influence in a particular context. It involves recognizing the roles and responsibilities of those in positions of authority and adhering to their directives or decisions within the boundaries of ethical and legal standards.
• Respect for honour upholding the principles of integrity, dignity, and moral uprightness in both oneself and others

Respect is not confined to personal relationships and educational institutions; it is a fundamental element that shapes the fabric of society.

Ans: Here are some best tips for respecting people: act responsibly, be empathetic, accept mistakes, listen to others, be relentlessly proactive, pay attention to non-verbal communication, keep your promises, etc.

Ans: To write an essay you need to highlight what respect means to you and how it can serve as an effective tool for coexisting with others. The concept of respect goes beyond talking politely and actively listening. It is considered a fundamental aspect of healthy relationships, effective communication, and a harmonious society. 

Ans: Here are three types of respect: Respect for Personhood, Respect for authority and Respect for honour.

Related Articles

For more information on such interesting topics, visit our essay writing page and follow Leverage Edu .

Shiva Tyagi

With an experience of over a year, I've developed a passion for writing blogs on wide range of topics. I am mostly inspired from topics related to social and environmental fields, where you come up with a positive outcome.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Contact no. *

Connect With Us

25,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today.

Resend OTP in

Need help with?

Study abroad.

UK, Canada, US & More

IELTS, GRE, GMAT & More

Scholarship, Loans & Forex

Country Preference

New Zealand

Which English test are you planning to take?

Which academic test are you planning to take.

Not Sure yet

When are you planning to take the exam?

Already booked my exam slot

Within 2 Months

Want to learn about the test

Which Degree do you wish to pursue?

When do you want to start studying abroad.

January 2024

September 2024

What is your budget to study abroad?

How would you describe this article ?

Please rate this article

We would like to hear more.

Have something on your mind?

Make your study abroad dream a reality in January 2022 with

India's Biggest Virtual University Fair

Essex Direct Admission Day

Why attend .

Don't Miss Out

Respect Essay for Students and Children

500+ words essay on respect.

Respect is a broad term. Experts interpret it in different ways. Generally speaking, it is a positive feeling or action expressed towards something. Furthermore, it could also refer to something held in high esteem or regard. Showing Respect is a sign of ethical behavior . Unfortunately, in the contemporary era, there has been undermining of the value of Respect. Most noteworthy, there are two essential aspects of Respect. These aspects are self-respect and respect for others.

Self-Respect

Self-Respect refers to loving oneself and behaving with honour and dignity. It reflects Respect for oneself. An individual who has Self-Respect would treat himself with honour. Furthermore, lacking Self-Respect is a matter of disgrace. An individual who does not respect himself, should certainly not expect Respect from others. This is because nobody likes to treat such an individual with Respect.

Self-Respect is the foundation of a healthy relationship . In relationships, it is important to respect your partner. Similarly, it is equally important to Respect yourself. A Self-Respecting person accepts himself with his flaws. This changes the way how others perceive the individual. An individual, who honours himself, would prevent others from disrespecting him. This certainly increases the value of the individual in the eyes of their partner.

Lacking Self-Respect brings negative consequences. An individual who lacks Self-Respect is treated like a doormat by others. Furthermore, such an individual may engage in bad habits . Also, there is a serious lack of self-confidence in such a person. Such a person is likely to suffer verbal or mental abuse. The lifestyle of such an individual also becomes sloppy and untidy.

Self-Respect is a reflection of toughness and confidence. Self-Respect makes a person accept more responsibility. Furthermore, the character of such a person would be strong. Also, such a person always stands for his rights, values, and opinions.

Self-Respect improves the morality of the individual. Such an individual has a good ethical nature. Hence, Self-Respect makes you a better person.

Self-Respect eliminates the need to make comparisons. This means that individuals don’t need to make comparisons with others. Some people certainly compare themselves with others on various attributes. Most noteworthy, they do this to seek validation of others. Gaining Self-Respect ends all that.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Respect of Others

Everyone must Respect fellow human beings. This is an essential requirement of living in a society. We certainly owe a basic level of Respect to others. Furthermore, appropriate Respect must be shown to people who impact our lives. This includes our parents, relatives, teachers, friends, fellow workers, authority figures, etc.

One of the best ways of showing respect to others is listening. Listening to another person’s point of view is an excellent way of Respect. Most noteworthy, we must allow a person to express his views even if we disagree with them.

Another important aspect of respecting others is religious/political views. Religious and cultural beliefs of others should be given a lot of consideration. Respecting other people’s Religions is certainly a sign of showing mature Respect.

Everyone must Respect those who are in authority. Almost everyone deals with people in their lives that hold authority. So, a healthy amount of Respect should be given to such people. People of authority can be of various categories. These are boss, police officer, religious leader, teacher, etc.

In conclusion, Respect is a major aspect of human socialization. It is certainly a precious value that must be preserved. Respectful behaviour is vital for human survival.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

Essays About Respect: Top 5 Examples and 8 Prompts

If you are looking for the next topic for your essay, read our helpful prompts and example essays about respect to get started.

Respect is a fundamental pillar in a harmonious society. At a young age, we are taught that everyone is deserving of respect and should likewise respect others, regardless of diverging beliefs, cultures, and origins. The underlying golden rule is never to do what we don’t want others to do to us.

However, as we grow older, we find it harder to respect people who go against our moral standards and social mores. Nevertheless, acknowledging people and their rights could already be a form of respect. But when people do not care to meet this bare minimum for respect, conflicts and crimes can ensue. 

5 Essay Examples

1. on self-respect by joan didion, 2. respect, trust and partnership: keeping diplomacy on course in troubling times by ted osius, 3. the respect deficit by richard v. reeves, 4. the emotional attachment of national symbols by karina lafayette, 5. filipino hospitality and respect for the aged by kashiwagi shiho, 1. how to show respect to criminals, 2. respect vs. love in relationships, 3. showing respect on social media, 4. respecting indigenous cultures, 5. how to respect data privacy rights, 6. what is respect for parents day, 7. when employees do not feel respected , 8. respect for animals.

“To assign unanswered letters their proper weight, to free us from the expectations of others, to give us back to ourselves—there lies the great, the singular power of self-respect.”

Didion explores misplaced self-respect through her experience of not making it to Phi Beta Kappa and the experience of others. What has been primarily associated with flattering others, self-respect, to Didion, is a virtue that can be developed when we emancipate ourselves from the expectations of others. 

“…[W]hen we show respect it has a big impact. Showing respect means figuring out what is really, truly important to our partners and taking that seriously. It costs America almost nothing and gets us almost everything.”

A former US ambassador to Vietnam shares that respect is a powerful tool to build and strengthen trading partners’ relationships. In the end, he suggests strengthening diplomacy with country partners, such as developing language and regional expertise.

“Here is a much deeper kind of inequality, caused not by a lack of resources, but by a lack of respect. You might be much richer or poorer than I am. But if we treat each other with mutual respect, we are, relationally speaking, equal.”

The essay talks about relational equality and how the lack of it could undermine both the sense of respect for others and the self. It touches on how the world’s meritocratic system has furthered the divide between classes and driven respect away from their reach. The urgent goal is to restore the sense of respect amid the bustle of our daily motions in life.

“National symbols deserve respect not because they are static representations of unchanging ideals, but because they offer a focal point for diverse societies to express and navigate what it is that unites and represents them.”

Respect for national symbols is imperative. But when the approach turns to one that is resistant to prospects of modifying national symbols, then we are missing out on opportunities to re-evaluate and re-invent how we can best represent our collective ideals. Instead of treating national symbols as sacred icons impervious to change, the best way to respect them and what they represent is to brave the thorny road of change. 

“When a Filipino child meets an older family member, the youth customarily greets them with a gesture called ‘mano po,’ taking the older relative’s hand and placing it on his or her own forehead to express profound respect for the elder.”

The essay thoroughly navigates how the Philippine society defends its elders, from the gestures of greeting to how the government, private sector, and non-profit organizations band together to support elders living alone. Other countries can learn from the Philippines’ experience in caring for their elders, especially in the quality care their nurses provide.

8 Thought-Provoking Prompts on Essays About Respect

It is easy to respect those who have worked hard and are deemed as typically well-behaved. But what about criminals who are stereotyped as not showing respect to others, or working hard? Are they deserving of our respect? Answer these questions and determine whether criminals are provided decent facilities and programs that inspire them to change. You can also look into how police officers keep track of their value of life to avoid the abuse of power and putting an end to life with unnecessary force. 

Take a deep dive into the differences between respect and love and discuss which is more important in a relationship. But first, explain the two and provide narrative examples to demonstrate their contrasts.

For example, with love, one might be inclined to say, “I’m willing to change myself for you.” But with a respect-filled relationship, boundaries are drawn. Hence, people can live comfortably with their true selves without having to worry about losing a partner.

Social media encourages people to say what they wouldn’t otherwise say in the physical world primarily because of the anonymity that social media grants them. In your essay, describe the effects of disrespect on social media. Social experts observe that disrespect propels cancel culture and decreases our tolerance of people with differing views. Do you agree with this? Add in other observations you have about mutual respect, or the lack of it, on social media.

Indigenous groups call for recognition and respect for their land and rich cultures. In this prompt, cite the challenges in promoting respect for the rights of indigenous peoples.

For example, how does the government reconcile the need to preserve their traditions with the need to alter practices that negatively impact the environment? Write down what else the government can do to support indigenous groups. One example is ensuring their participation in deliberating their lands’ use to enable them to give free, prior, and informed consent.

Data privacy is a fundamental human right, but our data can be easily harvested through every transaction and activity we make using our phones. This essay discusses the data privacy law in your country or state.

Write about the obligations the law has set for companies to sufficiently safeguard the personal data of their clients. Suppose you want to look at international data privacy standards. In that case, you can explore the General Data Protection Regulation , dissect its seven principles and find out how they play in the data privacy cycle from collection to disposal. 

Respect for Parents Day is celebrated in the US every August 1 to recognize the importance of parents’ roles in their children’s lives and the larger society. Dedicate this essay to celebrating your parents. Share with readers the hard work they do to raise you while handling a job or a business to build your future. Briefly narrate the origins of Respect Your Parents Day and provide tips on how families can best spend this day.  

In the workplace, some bosses abuse their power, overstep their boundaries and forget the basics of respect. How does disrespect affect the motivation and productivity of workers? Mull over this question and try to enumerate the negative impacts of disrespect in the workplace. Then, with the support of research studies, find out what motivational methods managers can employ to reinforce employees positively and help them receive the respect they deserve.

Over the years, the call for respect has extended beyond humankind and to the animal kingdom. First, hear the calls of advocacy groups combating the cruel practice of commoditizing animals or their parts for profit. Track how far their efforts have progressed.

You can also look into the International Convention for the Protection of Animals , a proposed treaty to address all animal issues, and research how it has moved forward to fill in the gap of an international agreement to protect animals.

Make sure your essays are clean and understandable with our list of the best essay checkers .

Tip : If writing an essay sounds like a lot of work, simplify it. Write a simple five-paragraph essay instead.

Yna Lim is a communications specialist currently focused on policy advocacy. In her eight years of writing, she has been exposed to a variety of topics, including cryptocurrency, web hosting, agriculture, marketing, intellectual property, data privacy and international trade. A former journalist in one of the top business papers in the Philippines, Yna is currently pursuing her master's degree in economics and business.

View all posts

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Trust is important, but it is also dangerous. It is important because it allows us to depend on others—for love, for advice, for help with our plumbing, or what have you—especially when we know that no outside force compels them to give us these things. But trust also involves the risk that people we trust will not pull through for us, for if there were some guarantee they would pull through, then we would have no need to trust them. [ 1 ] Trust is therefore dangerous. What we risk while trusting is the loss of valuable things that we entrust to others, including our self-respect perhaps, which can be shattered by the betrayal of our trust.

Because trust is risky, the question of when it is warranted is of particular importance. In this context, “warranted” means justified or well-grounded meaning, respectively, that the trust is rational (e.g., it is based on good evidence) or that it successfully targets a trustworthy person. If trust is warranted in these senses, then the danger of it is either minimized as with justified trust or eliminated altogether as with well-grounded trust. Leaving the danger of trust aside, one could also ask whether trust is warranted in the sense of being plausible. Trust may not be warranted in a particular situation because it is simply not plausible; the conditions necessary for it do not exist, as is the case when people feel only antagonism toward one another. This entry on trust is framed as a response to the general question of when trust is warranted, where “warranted” is broadly construed to include “justified”, “well-grounded” and “plausible”.

A complete philosophical answer to this question must explore the various philosophical dimensions of trust, including the conceptual nature of trust and trustworthiness, the epistemology of trust, the value of trust, and the kind of mental attitude trust is. To illustrate how each of these matters is relevant, note that trust is warranted, that is,

• plausible, again, only if the conditions required for trust exist (e.g., some optimism about one another’s ability). Knowing what these conditions are requires understanding the nature of trust.
• well-grounded, only if the trustee (the one trusted) is trustworthy, which makes the nature of trustworthiness important in determining when trust is warranted.
• justified, sometimes when the trustee is not in fact trustworthy, which suggests that the epistemology of trust is relevant.
• justified, often because some value will emerge from the trust or because it is valuable in and of itself. Hence, the value of trust is important.
• plausible, only when it is possible for one to develop trust, given one’s circumstances and the sort of mental attitude trust is. For instance, trust may not be the sort of attitude that one can will oneself to have without any evidence of a person’s trustworthiness.

This piece explores these different philosophical issues about trust. It deals predominantly with interpersonal trust, which arguably is the dominant paradigm of trust. Although some philosophers write about trust that is not interpersonal, including trust in groups (Hawley 2017), institutional trust (i.e., trust in institutions; see, e.g., Potter 2002; Govier 1997; Townley and Garfield 2013), trust in government (e.g., Hardin 2002; Budnik 2018) or science (e.g., Oreskes 2019), self-trust (Govier 1993; Lehrer 1997; Foley 2001; McLeod 2002; Goering 2009; Jones 2012b; Potter 2013), and trust in robots (e.g., Coeckelbergh 2012, Sullins 2020), most would agree that these forms of “trust” are coherent only if they share important features of (i.e., can be modeled on) interpersonal trust. The assumption going forward therefore is that the dominant paradigm is interpersonal.

In addition, while this entry focuses mainly on trust and trustworthiness, it also covers distrust (more so in this version than in previous versions). Distrust has received surprisingly little attention from philosophers, although it has recently become a topic of serious concern for some of them, particularly those who are interested in the politics of trust and distrust in societies marked by oppression and privilege. Relevant issues include when distrust is warranted by people who experience oppression and how misplaced distrust (i.e., in the oppressed) can be overcome by people who are privileged. This entry delves into these matters and also summarizes the few theories that exist about the nature of distrust.

1.1 Motives-based theories

1.2 non-motives-based theories, 1.3 distrust, 2.1 truth- vs. end-directed rationality, 2.2 internalism vs. externalism, 2.3 social and political climate, 3. the value of trust, 4. trust and the will, 5. conclusion, other internet resources, related entries, 1. the nature of trust and trustworthiness.

Trust is an attitude we have towards people whom we hope will be trustworthy, where trustworthiness is a property not an attitude. Trust and trustworthiness are therefore distinct although, ideally, those whom we trust will be trustworthy, and those who are trustworthy will be trusted. For trust to be plausible in a relationship, the parties to the relationship must have attitudes toward one another that permit trust. Moreover, for trust to be well-grounded, both parties must be trustworthy. (Note that here and throughout, unless specified otherwise, “trustworthiness” is understood in a thin sense according to which X is trustworthy for me just in case I can trust X .)

Trusting requires that we can, (1) be vulnerable to others—vulnerable to betrayal in particular; (2) rely on others to be competent to do what we wish to trust them to do; and (3) rely on them to be willing to do it. [ 2 ] Notice that the second two conditions refer to a connection between trust and reliance. For most philosophers, trust is a kind of reliance although it is not mere reliance (Goldberg 2020). Rather, trust involves reliance “plus some extra factor” (Hawley 2014: 5). Controversy surrounds this extra factor, which generally concerns why the trustor (i.e., the one trusting) would rely on the trustee to be willing to do what they are trusted to do.

Trustworthiness is likewise a kind of reliability, although it’s not obvious what kind. Clear conditions for trustworthiness are that the trustworthy person is competent and willing to do what they are trusted to do. Yet this person may also have to be willing for certain reasons or as a result of having a certain kind of motive for acting (e.g., they care about the trustor).

This section explains these various conditions for trust and trustworthiness and highlights the controversy that surrounds the condition about motive and relatedly how trust differs from mere reliance. Included at the end is some discussion about the nature of distrust.

Let me begin with the idea that the trustor must accept some level of vulnerability or risk (Becker 1996; Baier 1986). Minimally, what this person risks, or is vulnerable to, is the failure by the trustee to do what the trustor is depending on them to do. The trustor might try to reduce this risk by monitoring or imposing certain constraints on the behavior of the trustee; but after a certain threshold perhaps, the more monitoring and constraining they do, the less they trust this person. Trust is relevant “before one can monitor the actions of … others” (Dasgupta 1988: 51) or when out of respect for others one refuses to monitor them. One must be content with them having some discretionary power or freedom, and as a result, with being somewhat vulnerable to them (Baier 1986; Dasgupta 1988).

One might think that if one is relying while trusting—that is, if trust is a species of reliance—then accepted vulnerability would not be essential for trust. Do we not rely on things only when we believe they will actually happen? And if we believe that, then we don’t perceive ourselves as being vulnerable. Many philosophers writing on trust and reliance say otherwise. They endorse the view of Richard Holton, who writes, “When I rely on something happening … I [only] need to plan on it happening; I need to work around the supposition that it will [happen]” (Holton 1994: 3). I need not be certain of it happening and I could even have doubts that it will happen (Goldberg 2020). I could therefore accept that I am vulnerable. I could do that while trusting if trust is a form of reliance.

What does trusting make us vulnerable to, in particular? Annette Baier writes that “trusting can be betrayed, or at least let down, and not just disappointed” (1986: 235). In her view, disappointment is the appropriate response when one merely relied on someone to do something but did not trust them to do it. To elaborate, although people who monitor and constrain others’ behavior may rely on them, they do not trust them if their reliance can only be disappointed rather than betrayed. One can rely on inanimate objects, such as alarm clocks, but when they break, one is not betrayed though one might be disappointed. This point reveals that reliance without the possibility of betrayal (or at least “let down”) is not trust; people who rely on one another in a way that makes this reaction impossible do not trust one another.

But does trust always involve the potential for betrayal? “Therapeutic trust” may be an exception (Nickel 2007: 318; and for further exceptions, see, e.g., Hinchman 2017). To illustrate this type of trust, consider parents who

trust their teenagers with the house or the family car, believing that their [children] may well abuse their trust, but hoping by such trust to elicit, in the fullness of time, more responsible and responsive trustworthy behaviour. (McGeer 2008: 241, her emphasis; see also Horsburgh 1960 and Pettit 1995)

Therapeutic trust is not likely to be betrayed rather than merely be disappointed. It is unusual in this respect (arguably) and in other respects that will become evident later on in this entry. The rest of this section deals with usual rather than unusual forms of trust and trustworthiness.

Without relying on people to display some competence, we also can’t trust them. We usually trust people to do certain things, such as look after our children, give us advice, or be honest with us, which we wouldn’t do that if we thought they lacked the relevant skills, including potentially moral skills of knowing what it means to be honest or caring (Jones 1996: 7). Rarely do we trust people completely (i.e., A simply trusts B ). Instead, “trust is generally a three-part relation: A trusts B to do X ” (Hardin 2002: 9)—or “ A trusts B with valued item C ” (Baier 1986) or A trusts B in domain D (D’Cruz 2019; Jones 2019). [ 3 ] To have trust in a relationship, we do not need to assume that the other person will be competent in every way. Optimism about the person’s competence in at least one area is essential, however.

When we trust people, we rely on them not only to be competent to do what we trust them to do, but also to be willing or motivated to do it. We could talk about this matter either in terms of what the trustor expects of the trustee or in terms of what the trustee possesses: that is, as a condition for trust or for trustworthiness (and the same is true, of course, of the competence condition). For simplicity’s sake and to focus some of this section on trustworthiness rather than trust, the following refers to the motivation of the trustee mostly as a condition for trustworthiness.

Although both the competence and motivational elements of trustworthiness are crucial, the exact nature of the latter is unclear. For some philosophers, it matters only that the trustee is motivated, where the central problem of trustworthiness in their view concerns the probability that this motivation will exist or endure (see, e.g., Hardin 2002: 28; Gambetta 1988b). Jones calls these “risk-assessment views” about trust (1999: 68). According to them, we trust people whenever we perceive that the risk of relying on them to act a certain way is low and so we rely on (i.e., “trust”) them. They are trustworthy if they are willing, for whatever reason, to do what they are trusted to do. Risk-assessment theories make no attempt to distinguish between trust and mere reliance and have been criticized for this reason (see, e.g., Jones 1999).

By contrast, other philosophers say that just being motivated to act in the relevant way is not sufficient for trustworthiness; according to them, the nature of the motivation matters, not just its existence or duration. It matters in particular, they say, for explaining the trust-reliance distinction, which is something they aim to do. The central problem of trustworthiness for them is not simply whether but also how the trustee is motivated to act. Will that person have the kind of motivation that makes trust appropriate? Katherine Hawley identifies theories that respond to this question as “motives-based” theories (2014).

To complicate matters, there are “non-motives-based theories”, which are also not risk-assessment theories (Hawley 2014). They strive to distinguish between trust and mere reliance, though not by associating a particular kind of motive with trustworthiness. Since most philosophical debate about the nature of trust and trustworthiness centers on theories that are either motives-based or non-motives-based, let me expand on each of these categories.

Philosophers who endorse this type of theory differ in terms of what kind of motive they associate with trustworthiness. For some, it is self-interest, while for others, it is goodwill or an explicitly moral motive, such as moral integrity or virtue. [ 4 ]

For example, Russell Hardin defines trustworthiness in terms of self-interest in his “encapsulated interests” account (2002). He says that trustworthy people are motivated by their own interest to maintain the relationship they have with the trustor, which in turn encourages them to encapsulate the interests of that person in their own interests. In addition, trusting people is appropriate when we can reasonably expect them to encapsulate our interests in their own, an expectation which is missing with mere reliance.

Hardin’s theory may be valuable in explaining many different types of trust relationships, including those between people who can predict little about one another’s motives beyond where their self-interest lies. Still, his theory is problematic. To see why, consider how it applies to a sexist employer who has an interest in maintaining relationships with women employees, who treats them reasonably well as a result, but whose interest stems from a desire to keep them around so that he can daydream about having sex with them. This interest conflicts with an interest the women have in not being objectified by their employer. At the same time, if they were not aware of his daydreaming—say they are not—then he can ignore this particular interest of theirs. He can keep his relationships with them going while ignoring this interest and encapsulating enough of their other interests in his own. And this would make him trustworthy on Hardin’s account. But is he trustworthy? The answer is “no” or at least the women themselves would say “no” if they knew the main reason for their employment. The point is that being motivated by a desire to maintain a relationship (the central motivation of a trustworthy person on the encapsulated interests view) may not require one to adopt all of the interests of the trustor that would actually make one trustworthy to that person. In the end, the encapsulated interests view seems to describe only reliability, not trustworthiness. The sexist employer may reliably treat the women well, because of his interest in daydreaming about them, but he is not trustworthy because of why he treats them well.

A different type of theory is what Jones calls a “will-based” account, which finds trustworthiness only where the trustee is motivated by goodwill (Jones 1999: 68). This view originates in the work of Annette Baier and is influential, even outside of moral philosophy (e.g., in bioethics and law, especially fiduciary law; see, e.g., Pellegrino and Thomasma 1993, O’Neill 2002, and Fox-Decent 2005). According to it, a trustee who is trustworthy will act out of goodwill toward the trustor, to what or to whom the trustee is entrusted with, or both. While many readers might find the goodwill view problematic—surely we can trust people without presuming their goodwill!—it is immune to a criticism that applies to Hardin’s theory and also to risk-assessment theories. The criticism is that they fail to require that the trustworthy person care about (i.e., feel goodwill towards) the trustor, or care about what the trustor cares about. As we have seen, such caring appears to be central to a complete account of trustworthiness.

The particular reason why care may be central is that it allows us to grasp how trust and reliance differ. The above suggested that they differ because only trust can be betrayed (or at least let down). But why is that true? Why can trust be betrayed, while mere reliance can only be disappointed? The answer Baier gives is that betrayal is the appropriate response to someone on whom one relied to act out of goodwill, as opposed to ill will, selfishness, or habit bred out of indifference (1986: 234–5; see also Baier 1991). Those who say that trusting could involve relying on people to act instead on motives like ill will or selfishness will have trouble distinguishing between trust and mere reliance.

While useful in some respects, Baier’s will-based account is not perfect. Criticisms have been made that suggest goodwill is neither necessary nor sufficient for trustworthiness. It is not necessary because we can trust other people without presuming that they have goodwill (e.g., O’Neill 2002; Jones 2004), as we arguably do when we put our trust in strangers.

As well as being unnecessary, goodwill may not be sufficient for trustworthiness, and that is true for at least three reasons. First, someone trying to manipulate you—a “confidence trickster” (Baier 1986)—could “rely on your goodwill without trusting you”, say, to give them money (Holton 1994: 65). You are not trustworthy for them, despite your goodwill, because they are not trusting you but rather are just trying to trick you. Second, basing trustworthiness on goodwill alone cannot explain unwelcome trust. We do not always welcome people’s trust, because trust can be burdensome or inappropriate. When that happens, we object not to these people’s optimism about our goodwill (who would object to that?), but only to the fact that they are counting on us. Third, we can expect people to be reliably benevolent toward us without trusting them (Jones 1996: 10). We can think that their benevolence is not shaped by the sorts of values that for us are essential to trustworthiness. [ 5 ]

Criticisms about goodwill not being sufficient for trustworthiness have prompted revisions to Baier’s theory and in some cases to the development of new will-based theories. For example, in response to the first criticism—about the confidence trickster—Zac Cogley argues that trust involves the belief not simply that the trustee will display goodwill toward us but that this person owes us goodwill (2012). Since the confidence trickster doesn’t believe that their mark owes them goodwill, they don’t trust this person, and neither is this person trustworthy for them. In response to the second criticism—the one about unwelcome trust—Jones claims that optimism about the trustee’s goodwill must be coupled with the expectation that the trustee will be “favorably moved by the thought that [we are] counting on her” (1996: 9). Jones does that in her early work on trust where she endorses a will-based theory. Finally, in response to the third concern about goodwill not being informed by the sorts of values that would make people trustworthy for us, some maintain that trust involves an expectation about some shared values, norms, or interests (Lahno 2001, 2020; McLeod 2002, 2020; Mullin 2005; Smith 2008). (To be clear, this last expectation tends not to be combined with goodwill to yield a new will-based theory.)

One final criticism of will-based accounts concerns how “goodwill” should be interpreted. In much of the discussion above, it is narrowly conceived so that it involves friendly feeling or personal liking. Jones urges us in her early work on trust to understand goodwill more broadly, so that it could amount to benevolence, conscientiousness, or the like, or friendly feeling (1996: 7). But then in her later work, she worries that by defining goodwill so broadly we

turn it into a meaningless catchall that merely reports the presence of some positive motive, and one that may or may not even be directed toward the truster. (2012a: 67)

Jones abandons her own will-based theory upon rejecting both a narrow and a broad construal of goodwill. (The kind of theory she endorses now is a trust responsive one; see below.) If her concerns about defining goodwill are valid, then will-based theories are in serious trouble.

To recapitulate about encapsulated-interest and will-based theories, they say that a trustworthy person is motivated by self-interest or goodwill, respectively. Encapsulated-interest theories struggle to explain how trustworthiness differs from mere reliability, while will-based theories are faced with the criticism that goodwill is neither necessary nor sufficient for trustworthiness. Some philosophers who say that goodwill is insufficient develop alternative will-based theories. An example is Cogley’s theory according to which trust involves a normative expectation of goodwill (2012).

The field of motives-based theories is not exhausted by encapsulated-interest and will-based theories, however. Other motives-based theories include those that describe the motive of trustworthy people in terms of a moral commitment, moral obligation, or virtue. To expand, consider that one could make sense of the trustworthiness of a stranger by presuming that the stranger is motivated not by self-interest or goodwill, but by a commitment to stand by their moral values. In that case, I could trust a stranger to be decent by presuming just that she is committed to common decency. Ultimately, what I am presuming about the stranger is moral integrity, which some say is the relevant motive for trust relations (those that are prototypical; see McLeod 2002). Others identify this motive similarly as moral obligation, and say it is ascribed to the trustee by the very act of trusting them (Nickel 2007; for a similar account, see Cohen and Dienhart 2013). Although compelling in some respects, the worry about these theories is that they moralize trust inappropriately by demanding that the trustworthy person have a moral motive (see below and also Mullin 2005; Jones 2017).

Yet one might insist that it is appropriate to moralize trust or at least moralize trustworthiness, which we often think of as a virtuous character trait. Nancy Nyquist Potter refers to the trait as “full trustworthiness”, and distinguishes it from “specific trustworthiness”, which is trustworthiness that is specific to certain relationships (and equivalent to the thin sense of trustworthiness I have used throughout; 2002: 25). To be fully trustworthy, one must have a disposition to be trustworthy toward everyone, according to Potter. Let us call this the “virtue” account.

It may sound odd to insist that trustworthiness is a virtue or, in other words, a moral disposition to be trustworthy (Potter 2002: 25; Hardin 2002: 32). What disposition exactly is it meant to be? A disposition normally to honor people’s trust? That would be strange, since trust can be unwanted if the trust is immoral (e.g., being trusted to hide a murder) or if it misinterprets the nature of one’s relationship with the trustee (e.g., being trusted to be friends with a mere acquaintance). Perhaps trustworthiness is instead a disposition to respond to trust in appropriate ways, given “who one is in relation” to the trustor and given other virtues that one possesses or ought to possess (e.g., justice, compassion) (Potter 2002: 25). This is essentially Potter’s view. Modeling trustworthiness on an Aristotelian conception of virtue, she defines a trustworthy person as “one who can be counted on, as a matter of the sort of person he or she is, to take care of those things that others entrust to one and (following the Doctrine of the Mean) whose ways of caring are neither excessive nor deficient” (her emphasis; 16). [ 6 ] A similar account of trustworthiness as a virtue—an epistemic one, specifically—can be found in the literature on testimony (see Frost-Arnold 2014; Daukas 2006, 2011).

Criticism of the virtue account comes from Karen Jones (2012a). As she explains, if being trustworthy were a virtue, then being untrustworthy would be a vice, but that can’t be right because we can never be required to exhibit a vice, yet we can be required to be untrustworthy (84). An example occurs when we are counted on by two different people to do two incompatible things and being trustworthy to the one demands that we are untrustworthy to the other (83). To defend her virtue theory, Potter would have to insist that in such situations, we are required either to disappoint someone’s trust rather than be untrustworthy, or to be untrustworthy in a specific not a full sense. [ 7 ]

Rather than cling to a virtue theory, however, why not just accept the thin conception of trustworthiness (i.e., “specific trustworthiness”), according to which X is trustworthy for me just in case I can trust X ? Two things can be said. First, the thick conception—of trustworthiness as a virtue—is not meant to displace the thin one. We can and do refer to some people as being trustworthy in the specific or thin sense and to others as being trustworthy in the full or thick sense. Second, one could argue that the thick conception explains better than the thin one why fully trustworthy people are as dependable as they are. It is ingrained in their character. They therefore must have an ongoing commitment to being accountable to others, and better still, a commitment that comes from a source that is compatible with trustworthiness (i.e., virtue as opposed to mere self-interest).

An account of trustworthiness that includes the idea that trustworthiness is a virtue will seem ideal only if we think that the genesis of the trustworthy person’s commitment matters. If we believe, like risk-assessment theorists, that it matters only whether, not how, the trustor will be motivated to act, then we could assume that ill will can do the job as well as a moral disposition. Such controversy explains how and why motives-based and risk-assessment theories diverge from one another.

A final category are theories that base trustworthiness neither on the kind of motivation a trustworthy person has nor on the mere willingness of this person to do what they are relied on to do. These are non-motives-based and also non-risk-assessment theories. The conditions that give rise to trustworthiness according to them reside ultimately in the stance the trustor takes toward the trustee or in what the trustor believes they ought to be able to expect from this person (i.e., in normative expectations of them). These theories share with motives-based theories the goal of describing how trust differs from mere reliance.

An example is Richard Holton’s theory of trust (1994). Holton argues that trust is unique because of the stance the trustor takes toward the trustee: the “participant stance”, which involves treating the trustee as a person—someone who is responsible for their actions—rather than simply as an object (see also Strawson 1962 [1974]). In the case of trust specifically, the stance entails a readiness to feel betrayal (Holton 1994: 4). Holton’s claim is that this stance and this readiness are absent when we merely rely on someone or something.

Although Holton’s theory has garnered positive attention (e.g., by Hieronymi 2008; McGeer 2008), some do find it dissatisfying. For example, some argue that it does not obviously explain what would justify a reaction of betrayal, rather than mere disappointment, when someone fails to do what they are trusted to do (Jones 2004; Nickel 2007). They could fail to do it just by accident, in which case feelings of betrayal would be inappropriate (Jones 2004). Others assert, by contrast, that taking the participant stance toward someone

does not always mean trusting that person: some interactions [of this sort] lie outside the realm of trust and distrust. (Hawley 2014: 7)

To use an example from Hawley, my partner could come to rely on me to make him dinner every night in a way that involves him taking the participant stance toward me. But he needn’t trust me to make him dinner and so needn’t feel betrayed if I do not. He might know that I am loath for him to trust me in this regard: “to make this [matter of making dinner] a matter of trust” between us (Hawley 2014: 7).

Some philosophers have expanded on Holton’s theory in a way that might deflect some criticism of it. Margaret Urban Walker emphasizes that in taking a participant stance, we hold people responsible (2006: 79). We expect them to act not simply as we assume they will , but as they should . We have, in other words, normative rather than merely predictive expectations of them. Call this a “normative-expectation” theory, which again is an elaboration on the participant-stance theory. Endorsed by Walker and others (e.g., Jones 2004 and 2012a; Frost-Arnold 2014), this view explains the trust-reliance distinction in terms of the distinction between normative and predictive expectations. It also describes the potential for betrayal in terms of the failure to live up a normative expectation.

Walker’s theory is non-motives-based because it doesn’t specify that trustworthy people must have a certain kind of motive for acting. She says that trustworthiness is compatible with having many different kinds of motives, including, among others, goodwill, “pride in one’s role”, “fear of penalties for poor performance”, and “an impersonal sense of obligation” (2006: 77). What accounts for whether someone is trustworthy in her view is whether they act as they should, not whether they are motivated in a certain way. (By contrast, Cogley’s normative-expectation theory says that the trustworthy person both will and ought to act with goodwill. His theory is motives-based.)

Prominent in the literature is a kind of normative-expectation theory called a “trust- (or dependence-) responsive” theory (see, e.g., Faulkner and Simpson 2017: 8; Faulkner 2011, 2017; Jones 2012a, 2017, 2019; McGeer and Petit 2017). According to this view, being trustworthy involves being appropriately responsive to the reason you have to do X —what you are being relied on (or “counted on”; Jones 2012a) to do—when it’s clear that someone is in fact relying on you. The reason you have to do X exists simply because someone is counting on you; other things being equal, you should do it for this reason. Being appropriately responsive to it, moreover, just means that you find it compelling (Jones 2012a: 70–71). The person trusting you expects you to have this reaction; in other words, they have a normative expectation that the “manifest fact of [their] reliance will weigh on you as a reason for choosing voluntarily to X ” (McGeer and Pettit 2017: 16). This expectation is missing in cases of mere reliance. When I merely rely on you, I do not expect my reliance to weigh on you as I do when I trust you.

Although trust-responsive theories might seem motives-based, they are not. One might think that to be trustworthy, they require that you to be motivated by the fact that you are being counted on. Instead, they demand only that you be appropriately responsive to the reason you have to do what you are being depended on to do. As Jones explains, you could be responsive in this way and act ultimately out of goodwill, conscientiousness, love, duty, or the like (2012a: 66). The reaction I expect of you, as the trustor, is compatible with you acting on different kinds of motives, although to be clear, not just any motive will do (not like in Walker’s theory); some motives are ruled out, including indifference and ill will (Jones 2012a: 68). Being indifferent or hateful towards me means that you are unlikely to view me counting on you as a reason to act. Hence, if I knew you were indifferent or hateful, I would not expect you to be trust responsive.

Trust-responsive theories are less restrictive than motives-based theories when it comes to defining what motives people need to be trustworthy. At the same time, they are more restrictive when it comes to stating whether, in order to be trustworthy or trusted, one must be aware that one is being counted on. One couldn’t be trust responsive otherwise. In trusting you, I therefore must “make clear to you my assumption that you will prove reliable in doing X ” (McGeer and Pettit 2017: 16). I do not have to do that by contrast if, in trusting you, I am relying on you instead to act with a motive like goodwill. Baier herself allows that trust can exist where the trustee is unaware of it (1986: 235; see also Hawley 2014; Lahno 2020). For her, trust is ubiquitous (Jones 2017: 102) in part for this reason; we trust people in a myriad of different ways every single day, often without them knowing it. If she’s right about this fact, then trust-responsive theories are incomplete.

These theories are also vulnerable to objections raised against normative-expectation theories, because they are again a type of normative-expectation theory. One such concern comes from Hawley. In writing about both trust and distrust, she states that

we need a story about when trust, distrust or neither is objectively appropriate—what is the worldly situation to which (dis)trust] is an appropriate response? When is it appropriate to have (dis)trust-related normative expectations of someone? (2014: 11)

Normative-expectation theories tend not to provide an answer. And trust-responsive theories suggest only that trust-related normative expectations are appropriate when certain motives are absent (e.g., ill will), which may not to be enough.

Hawley responds to the above concern within her “commitment account” of trust (2014, 2019). This theory states that in trusting others, we believe that they have a commitment to doing what we are trusting them to do (2014: 10), a fact which explains why we expect them to act this way, and also why we fail to do so in cases like that of my partner relying on me to make dinner; he knows I have no commitment to making his dinner (or anyone else’s) repeatedly. For Hawley, the relevant commitments

can be implicit or explicit, weighty or trivial, conferred by roles and external circumstances, default or acquired, welcome or unwelcome. (2014: 11)

They also needn’t actually motivate the trustworthy person. Her theory is non-motives-based because it states that to

be trustworthy, in some specific respect, it is enough to behave in accordance with one’s commitment, regardless of motive. (2014: 16)

Similarly, to trust me to do something, it is enough to believe that I

have a commitment to do it, and that I will do it, without believing that I will do it because of my commitment. (2014: 16; her emphasis)

Notice that unlike trust-responsive theories, the commitment account does not require that the trustee be aware of the trust in order to be trustworthy. This person simply needs to have a commitment and to act accordingly. They don’t even need to be committed to the trustor, but rather could be committed to anyone and one could trust them to follow through on that commitment (Hawley 2014: 11). So, relying on a promise your daughter’s friend makes to her to take her home from the party would count as an instance of trust (Hawley 2014: 11). In this way, the commitment account is less restrictive than trust-responsive theories are. In being non-motives-based, Hawley’s theory is also less restrictive than any motives-based theory. Trust could truly be ubiquitous if she’s correct about the nature of it.

Like the other theories considered here, however, the commitment account is open to criticisms. One might ask whether Hawley gives a satisfactory answer to the question that motivates her theory: when can we reasonably have the normative expectations of someone that go along with trusting them? Hawley’s answer is, when this person has the appropriate commitment, where “commitment” is understood very broadly. Yet where the relevant commitment is implicit or unwelcome, it’s unclear that we can predict much about the trustee’s behavior. In cases like these, the commitment theory may have little to say about whether it is reasonable to trust.

A further criticism comes from Andrew Kirton (2020) who claims that we sometimes trust people to act contrary to what they are committed to doing. His central example involves a navy veteran, an enlisted man, whose ship sunk at sea and who trusted those who rescued them (navy men) to ignore a commitment they had to save the officers first, because the officers were relatively safe on lifeboats compared to the enlisted men who were struggling in the water. Instead the rescuers adhered to their military duty, and the enlisted man felt betrayed by them for nearly letting him drown. Assuming it is compelling, this example shows that trust and commitment can come apart and that Hawley’s theory is incomplete. [ 8 ]

The struggle to find a complete theory of trust has led some philosophers to be pluralists about trust—that is, to say, “we must recognise plural forms of trust” (Simpson 2012: 551) or accept that trust is not just one form of reliance, but many forms of it (see also Jacoby 2011; Scheman 2020; McLeod 2020). Readers may be led to this conclusion from the rundown I’ve given of the many different theories of trust in philosophy and the objections that have been raised to them. Rather than go in the direction of pluralism, however, most philosophers continue to debate what unifies all trust such that it is different from mere reliance. They tend to believe that a unified and suitably developed motives-based theory or non-motives-based theory can explain this difference, although there is little consensus about what this theory should be like.

In spite of there being little settled agreement in philosophy about trust, there are thankfully things we can say for certain about it that are relevant to deciding when it is warranted. The trustor must be able to accept that by trusting, they are vulnerable usually to betrayal. Also, the trustee must be competent and willing to do what the trustor expects of them and may have to be willing because of certain attitudes they have. Last, in paradigmatic cases of trust, the trustor must be able to rely on the trustee to exhibit this competence and willingness.

As suggested above, distrust has been somewhat of an afterthought for philosophers (Hawley 2014), [ 9 ] although their attention to it has grown recently. As with trust and trustworthiness, philosophers would agree that distrust has certain features, although the few who have developed theories of distrust disagree ultimately about the nature of it.

The following are features of distrust that are relatively uncontroversial (see D’Cruz 2020):

• Distrust is not just the absence of trust since it is possible to neither distrust nor trust someone (Hawley 2014: 3; Jones 1996: 16; Krishnamurthy 2015). There is gap between the two—“the possibility of being suspended between” them (Ullmann-Margalit 2004 [2017: 184]). (For disagreement, see Faulkner 2017.)
• Although trust and distrust are not exhaustive, they are exclusive; one cannot at the same time trust and distrust someone about the same matter (Ullmann-Margalit 2004 [2017: 201]).
• Distrust is “not mere nonreliance” (Hawley 2014: 3). I could choose not to rely on a colleague’s assistance because I know she is terribly busy, not because I distrust her.
• Relatedly, distrust has a normative dimension. If I distrusted a colleague for no good reason and they found out about it, then they would probably be hurt or angry. But the same reaction would not accompany them knowing that I decided not to rely on them (Hawley 2014). Being distrusted is a bad thing (Domenicucci and Holton 2017: 150; D’Cruz 2019: 935), while not being relied on needn’t be bad at all.
• Distrust is normally a kind of nonreliance, just as trust is a kind (or many kinds) of reliance. Distrust involves “action-tendencies” of avoidance or withdrawal (D’Cruz 2019: 935–937), which make it incompatible with reliance—or at least complete reliance. We can be forced to rely on people we distrust, yet even then, we try to keep them at as safe a distance as possible.

Given the relationship between trust and distrust and the similarities between them (e.g., one is “richer than [mere] reliance” and the other is “richer than mere nonreliance”; Hawley 2014: 3), one would think that any theory of trust should be able to explain distrust and vice versa. Hawley makes this point and criticizes theories of trust for not being able to make sense of distrust (2014: 6–9). For example, will-based accounts imply that distrust must be nonreliance plus an expectation of ill will, yet the latter is not required for distrust. I could distrust someone because he is careless, not because he harbors ill will toward me (Hawley 2014: 6).

Hawley defends her commitment account of trust, in part, because she believes it is immune to the above criticism. It says that distrust is nonreliance plus the belief that the person distrusted is committed to doing what we will not rely on them to do. In spite of them being committed in this way (or so we believe), we do not rely on them (2014: 10). This account does not require that we impute any particular motive or feeling to the one distrusted, like ill will. At the same time, it tells us why distrust is not mere nonreliance and also why it is normative; the suspicion of the one distrusted is that they will fail to meet a commitment they have, which is bad.

Some have argued that Hawley’s theory of distrust is subject to counterexamples, however (D’Cruz 2020; Tallant 2017). For example, Jason D’Cruz describes a financier who “buys insurance on credit defaults, positioning himself to profit when borrowers default” (2020: 45). The financier believes that the borrowers have a commitment not to default, and he does not rely on them to meet this commitment. The conclusion that Hawley’s theory would have us reach is that he distrusts the borrowers, which doesn’t seem right.

A different kind of theory of distrust can be found in the work of Meena Krishnamurthy (2015), who is interested specifically in the value that distrust has for political democracies, and for political minorities in particular (2015). She offers what she calls a “narrow normative” account of distrust that she derives from the political writings of Martin Luther King Jr. The account is narrow because it serves a specific purpose: of explaining how distrust can motivate people to resist tyranny. It is normative because it concerns what they ought to do (again, resist; 392). The theory states that distrust is the confident belief that others will not act justly. It needn’t involve an expectation of ill will; King’s own distrust of white moderates was not grounded in such an expectation (Krishnamurthy 2015: 394). To be distrusting, one simply has to believe that others will not act justly, whether out of fear, ignorance, or what have you.

D’Cruz complains that Krishnamurthy’s theory is too narrow because it requires a belief that the one distrusted will fail to do something (i.e., act justly) (2020); but one can be distrustful of someone—say a salesperson who comes to your door (Jones 1996)—without predicting that they will do anything wrong or threatening. D’Cruz does not explain, however, why Krishnamurthy needs to account for cases like these in her theory, which again is meant to serve a specific purpose. Is it important that distrust can take a form other than “ X distrusts Y to [do] Φ” for it to motivate political resistance (D’Cruz 2020: 45)? D’Cruz’s objection is sound only if the answer is “yes”.

Nevertheless, D’Cruz’s work is helpful in showing what a descriptive account of distrust should look like—that is, an account that unlike Krishnamurthy’s, tracks how we use the concept in many different circumstances. He himself endorses a normative-expectation theory, according to which distrust involves

a tendency to withdraw from reliance or vulnerability in contexts of normative expectation, based on a construal of a person or persons as malevolent, incompetent, or lacking integrity. (2019: 936)

D’Cruz has yet to develop this theory fully, but once he does so, it will almost certainly be a welcome addition to the scant literature in philosophy on distrust.

In summary, among the relatively few philosophers who have written on distrust, there is settled agreement about some of its features but not about the nature of distrust in general. The agreed-upon features tell us something about when distrust is warranted (i.e., plausible). For distrust in someone to be plausible, one cannot also trust that person, and normally one will not be reliant on them either. Something else must be true as well, however. For example, one must believe that this person is committed to acting in a certain way but will not follow through on this commitment. The “something else” is crucial because distrust is not the negation of trust and neither is it mere nonreliance.

Philosophers have said comparatively little about what distrust is, but a lot about how distrust tends to be influenced by negative social stereotypes that portray whole groups of people as untrustworthy (e.g., Potter 2020; Scheman 2020; D’Cruz 2019; M. Fricker 2007). Trusting attitudes are similar—who we trust can depend significantly on social stereotypes, positive ones—yet there is less discussion about this fact in the literature on trust. This issue concerns the rationality (more precisely, the ir rationality) of trust and distrust, which makes it relevant to the next section, which is on the epistemology of trust.

2. The Epistemology of Trust

Writings on this topic obviously bear on the issue of when trust is warranted (i.e., justified). The central epistemological question about trust is, “Ought I to trust or not?” That is, given the way things seem to me, is it reasonable for me to trust? People tend to ask this sort of question only in situations where they can’t take trustworthiness for granted—that is, where they are conscious of the fact that trusting could get them into trouble. Examples are situations similar to those in which they have been betrayed in the past or unlike any they have ever been in before. The question, “Ought I to trust?” is therefore particularly pertinent to a somewhat odd mix of people that includes victims of abuse or the like, as well as immigrants and travelers.

The question “Ought I to distrust?” has received comparatively little attention in philosophy despite it arguably being as important as the question of when to trust. People can get into serious trouble by distrusting when they ought not to, rather than just by trusting when they ought not to. The harms of misplaced distrust are both moral and epistemic and include dishonoring people, being out of harmony with them, and being deprived of knowledge via testimony (D’Cruz 2019; M. Fricker 2007). Presumably because they believe that the harms of misplaced trust are greater (D’Cruz 2019), philosophers—and consequently I, in this entry—focus more on the rationality of trusting, as opposed to distrusting.

Philosophical work that is relevant to the issue of how to trust well appears either under the general heading of the epistemology or rationality of trust (e.g., Baker 1987; Webb 1992; Wanderer and Townsend 2013) or under the specific heading of testimony—that is, of putting one’s trust in the testimony of others. This section focuses on the epistemology of trust generally rather than on trust in testimony specifically. There is a large literature on testimony (see the entry in this encyclopedia) and on the related topic of epistemic injustice, both of which I discuss only insofar as they overlap with the epistemology of trust.

Philosophers sometimes ask whether it could ever be rational to trust other people. This question arises for two reasons. First, it appears that trust and rational reflection (e.g., on whether one should be trusting) are in tension with one another. Since trust inherently involves risk, any attempt to eliminate that risk through rational reflection could eliminate one’s trust by turning one’s stance into mere reliance. Second, trust tends to give us blinkered vision: it makes us resistant to evidence that may contradict our optimism about the trustee (Baker 1987; Jones 1996 and 2019). For example, if I trust my brother not to harm anyone, I will resist the truth of any evidence to the contrary. Here, trust and rationality seem to come apart.

Even if some of our trust could be rational, one might insist that not all of it could be rational for various reasons. First, if Baier is right that trust is ubiquitous (1986: 234), then we could not possibly subject all of it to rational reflection. We certainly could not reflect on every bit of knowledge we’ve acquired through the testimony of others, such as that the earth is round or Antarctica exists (Webb 1993; E. Fricker 1995; Coady 1992). Second, bioethicists point out that some trust is unavoidable and occurs in the absence of rational reflection (e.g., trust in emergency room nurses and physicians; see Zaner 1991). Lastly, some trust—namely the therapeutic variety—purposefully leaps beyond any evidence of trustworthiness in an effort to engender trustworthiness in the trustee. Is this sort of trust rational? Perhaps not, given that there isn’t sufficient evidence for it.

Many philosophers respond to the skepticism about the rationality of trust by saying that rationality, when applied to trust, needs to be understood differently than it is in each of the skeptical points above. There, “rationality” means something like this: it is rational to believe in something only if one has verified that it will happen or done as much as possible to verify it. For example, it is rational for me to believe that my brother has not harmed anyone only if the evidence points in that direction and I have discovered that to be the case. As we’ve seen, problems exist with applying this view of rationality to trust, yet it is not the only option; this view is both “truth-directed” and “internalist”, while the rationality of trust could instead be “end-directed” or “externalist”. Or it could be internalist without requiring that we have done the evidence gathering just discussed. Let me expand on these possibilities, starting with those that concern truth- or end-directed rationality.

In discussing the rationality of trust, some authors distinguish between these two types of rationality (also referred to as epistemic vs. strategic rationality; see, e.g., Baker 1987). One could say that we are rational in trusting emergency room physicians, for example, not necessarily because we have good reason to believe that they are trustworthy (our rationality is not truth-directed), but because by trusting them, we can remain calm in a situation over which we have little control (our rationality is therefore end-directed). Similarly, it may be rational for me to trust my brother not because I have good evidence of his trustworthiness but rather because trusting him is essential to our having a loving relationship. [ 10 ]

Trust can be rational, then, depending on whether one conceives of rationality as truth-directed or end-directed. Notice that it matters also how one conceives of trust, and more specifically, whether one conceives of it as a belief in someone’s trustworthiness (see section 4 ). If trust is a belief, then whether the rationality of trust can be end-directed will depend on whether the rationality of a belief can be end-directed. To put the point more generally, how trust is rationally justified will depend on how beliefs are rationally justified (Jones 1996).

Some of the literature on trust and rationality concerns whether the rationality of trust can indeed be end-directed and also what could make therapeutic trust and the like rational. Pamela Hieronymi argues that the ends for which we trust cannot provide reasons for us to trust in the first place (2008). Considerations about how useful or valuable trust is do not bear on the truth of a trusting belief (i.e., a belief in someone’s trustworthiness). But Hieronymi claims that trust, in a pure sense at least, always involves a trusting belief. How then does she account for trust that is motivated by how therapeutic (i.e., useful) the trust will be? She believes that trust of this sort is not pure or full-fledged trust. As she explains, people can legitimately complain about not being trusted fully when they are trusted in this way, which occurs when other people lack confidence in them but trust them nonetheless (2008: 230; see also Lahno 2001: 184–185).

By contrast, Victoria McGeer believes that trust is more substantial or pure when the available evidence does not support it (2008). She describes how trust of this sort—what she calls “substantial trust”—could be rational and does so without appealing to how important it might be or to the ends it might serve, but instead to whether the trustee will be trustworthy. [ 11 ] According to McGeer, what makes “substantial trust” rational is that it involves hope that the trustees will do what they are trusted to do, which “can have a galvanizing effect on how [they] see themselves, as trustors avowedly do, in the fullness of their potential” (2008: 252; see also McGeer and Pettit 2017). Rather than complain (as Hieronymi would assume that trustees might) about trustors being merely hopeful about their trustworthiness, they could respond well to the trustors’ attitude toward them. Moreover, if it is likely that they will respond well—in other words, that they will be trust-responsive—then the trust in them must be epistemically rational. That is particularly true if being trustworthy involves being trust-responsive, as it does for McGeer (McGeer and Pettit 2017).

McGeer’s work suggests that all trust—even therapeutic trust—can be rational in a truth-directed way. As we’ve seen, there is some dispute about whether trust can be rational in just an end-directed way. What matters here is whether trust is the sort of attitude whose rationality could be end-directed.

Philosophers who agree that trust can be rational (in a truth- or end-directed way or both) tend to disagree about the extent to which reasons that make it rational must be accessible to the trustor. Some say that these reasons must be available to this person in order for their trust to be rational; in that case, the person is or could be internally justified in trusting as they do. Others say that the reasons need not be internal but can instead be external to the trustor and lie in what caused the trust, or, more specifically, in the epistemic reliability of what caused it. The trustor also needn’t have access to or be aware of the reliability of these reasons. The latter’s epistemology of trust is externalist, while the former’s is internalist.

Some epistemologists write as though trust is only rational if the trustor themselves has rationally estimated the likelihood that the trustee is trustworthy. For example, Russell Hardin implies that if my trust in you is rational, then

I make a rough estimate of the truth of [the] claim … that you will be trustworthy under certain conditions … and then I correct my estimate, or “update,” as I obtain new evidence on you. (2002: 112)

On this view, I must have reasons for my estimate or for my updates (Hardin 2002: 130), which could come from inductive generalizations I make about my past experience, from my knowledge that social constraints exist that will encourage your trustworthiness or what have you. Such an internalist epistemology of trust is valuable because it coheres with the commonsense idea that one ought to have good reasons for trusting people (i.e., reasons grounded in evidence that they will be trustworthy) particularly when something important is at stake (E. Fricker 1995). One ought, in other words, to be epistemically responsible in one’s trusting (see Frost-Arnold 2020).

Such an epistemology is also open to criticisms, however. For example, it suggests that rational trust will always be partial rather than complete, given that the rational trustor is open to evidence that contradicts their trust on this theory, while someone who trusts completely in someone else lacks such openness. The theory also implies that the reasons for trusting well (i.e., in a justified way) are accessible to the trustor, at some point or another, which may simply be false. Some reasons for trust may be too “cunning” for this to be the case. Relevant here is the reason for trusting discussed by Philip Pettit (1995): that trust signals to people that they are being held in esteem, which is something they will want to maintain; they will honor the trust because they are naturally “esteem-seeking”. (Note that consciously having this as a reason for trusting—of using people’s need for esteem to get what you want from them—is incompatible with actually trusting (Wanderer and Townsend 2013: 9), if trust is motives-based and the required motive is something other than self-interest.)

Others say that reasons for trust are usually too numerous and varied to be open to the conscious consideration of the trustor (e.g., Baier 1986). There can be very subtle reasons to trust or distrust someone—for example, reasons that have to do with body language, with systematic yet veiled forms of oppression, or with a complicated history of trusting others about which one can’t easily generalize. Factors like these can influence trustors without them knowing it, sometimes making their trust irrational (e.g., because it is informed by oppressive biases), and other times making it rational.

The concern about there being complex reasons for trusting explain why some philosophers defend externalist epistemologies of trust. Some do so explicitly (e.g., McLeod 2002). They argue for reliabilist theories that make trust rationally justified if and only if it is formed and sustained by reliable processes (i.e., “processes that tend to produce accurate representations of the world”, such as drawing on expertise one has rather than simply guessing; Goldman 1992: 113; Goldman and Beddor 2015 [2016]). Others gesture towards externalism (Webb 1993; Baier 1986), as Baier does with what she calls “a moral test for trust”. The test is that

knowledge of what the other party is relying on for the continuance of the trust relationship would … itself destabilize the relation. (1986: 255)

The other party might be relying on a threat advantage or the concealment of their untrustworthiness, in which case the trust would probably fail the test. Because Baier’s test focuses on the causal basis for trust, or for what maintains the trust relation, it is externalist. Also, because the trustor often cannot gather the information needed for the test without ceasing to trust the other person (Baier 1986: 260), the test cannot be internalist.

Although an externalist theory of trust deals well with some of the worries one might have with an internalist theory, it has problems of its own. One of the most serious issues is the absence of any requirement that trustors themselves have good (motivating) reasons for trusting, especially when their trust makes them seriously vulnerable. Again, it appears that common sense dictates the opposite: that sometimes as trustors, we ought to be able to back up our decisions about when to trust. The same is true about our distrust presumably: that sometimes we ought to be able to defend it. Assuming externalists mean for their epistemology to apply to distrust and not just to trust, their theory violates this bit of common sense as well. Externalism about distrust also seems incompatible with a strategy that some philosophers recommend for dealing with biased distrust. The strategy is to develop what they call “corrective trust” (e.g., Scheman 2020) or “humble trust” (D’Cruz 2019), which demands a humble skepticism toward distrust that aligns with oppressive stereotypes and efforts at correcting the influence of these stereotypes (see also M. Fricker 2007). The concern about an externalist epistemology is that it does not encourage this sort of mental work, since it does not require that we reflect on our reasons for distrusting or trusting.

There are alternatives to the kinds of internalist and externalist theories just discussed, especially within the literature on testimony. [ 12 ] For example, Paul Faulkner develops an “assurance theory” of testimony that interprets speaker trustworthiness in terms of trust-responsiveness. Recall that on a trust-responsiveness theory of trust, being trusted gives people the reason to be trustworthy that someone is counting on them. They are trustworthy if they are appropriately responsive to this reason, which, in the case of offering testimony, involves giving one’s assurance that one is telling the truth (Adler 2006 [2017]). Faulkner uses the trust-responsiveness account of trust, along with a view of trust as an affective attitude (see section 4 ), to show “how trust can ground reasonable testimonial uptake” (Faulkner and Simpson 2017: 6; Faulkner 2011 and 2020).

He proposes that A affectively trust S if and only if A depends on S Φ-ing, and expects his dependence on S to motivate S to Φ—for A ’s dependence on S to be the reason for which S Φs …. As a result, affective trust is a bootstrapping attitude: I can choose to trust someone affectively and my doing so creates the reasons which justify the attitude. (Faulkner and Simpson 2017: 6)

Most likely, A (the trustor) is aware of the reasons that justify his trust or could be aware of them, making this theory an internalist one. The reasons are also normative and non-evidentiary (Faulkner 2020); they concern what S ought to do because of A ’s dependence, not what S will do based on evidence that A might gather about S . This view doesn’t require that A have evidentiary reasons, and so it is importantly different than the internalist epistemology discussed above. But it is then also subject to the criticisms made of externalist theories that they don’t require the kind of scrutiny of our trusting attitudes that we tend to expect and probably ought to expect in societies where some people are stereotyped as more trusting than others.

Presumably to avoid having to defend any particular epistemology of trust, some philosophers provide just a list of common justifiers for it (i.e., “facts or states of affairs that determine the justification status of [trust]”; Goldman 1999: 274), which someone could take into account in deciding when to trust (Govier 1998; Jones 1996). Included on these lists are such factors as the social role of the trustee, the domain in which the trust occurs, an “agent-specific” factor that concerns how good a trustor the agent tends to be (Jones 1996: 21), and the social or political climate in which the trust occurs. Philosophers have tended to emphasize this last factor as a justification condition for trust, and so let me elaborate on it briefly.

Although trust is paradigmatically a relation that holds between two individuals, forces larger than those individuals inevitably shape their trust and distrust in one another. Social or political climate contributes to how (un)trustworthy people tend to be and therefore to whether trust and distrust are justified. For example, a climate of virtue is one in which trustworthiness tends to be pervasive, assuming that virtues other than trustworthiness tend to enhance it (Baier 2004). [ 13 ] A climate of oppression is one in which untrustworthiness is prevalent, especially between people who are privileged and those who are less privileged (Baier 1986: 259; Potter 2002: 24; D’Cruz 2019). “Social trust”, as some call it, is low in these circumstances (Govier 1997; Welch 2013).

Social or political climate has a significant influence on the default stance that we ought to take toward people’s trustworthiness (see, e.g., Walker 2006). We need such a stance because we can’t always stop to reflect carefully on when to trust (i.e., assuming that some rational reflection is required for trusting well). Some philosophers say that the correct stance is trust and do so without referring to the social or political climate; Tony Coady takes this sort of position, for example, on our stance toward others’ testimony (Coady 1992). Others disagree that the correct stance could be so universal and claim instead that it is relative to climate, as well as to other factors such as domain (Jones 1999).

Our trust or distrust may be prima facie justified if we have the correct default stance, although most philosophers assume that it could only be fully justified (in a truth- or end-directed way) by reasons that are internal to us (evidentiary or non-evidentiary reasons) or by the causal processes that created the attitude in the first place. Whichever epistemology of trust we choose, it ought to be sensitive to the tension that exists between trusting somebody and rationally reflecting on the grounds for that trust. It would be odd, to say the least, if what made an attitude justified destroyed that very attitude. At the same time, our epistemology of trust ought to cohere as much as possible with common sense, which dictates that we should inspect rather than have pure faith in whatever makes us seriously vulnerable to other people, which trust can most definitely do.

Someone who asks, “When is trust warranted?” might be interested in knowing what the point of trust is. In other words, what value does it have? Although the value it has for particular people will depend on their circumstances, the value it could have for anyone will depend on why trust is valuable, generally speaking. Trust can have enormous instrumental value and may also have some intrinsic value. In discussing its instrumental value, this section refers to the “goods of trust”, which can benefit the trustor, the trustee, or society in general. They are therefore social and/or individual goods. What is more and as emphasized throughout, these goods tend to accompany justified trust, rather than any old trust. [ 14 ] Like the other sections of this entry, this one focuses predominantly though not exclusively on trust; it also mentions recent work on the value of distrust.

Consider first the possibility that trust has intrinsic value. If trust produced no goods independent of it, would there be any point in trusting? One might say “yes”, on the grounds that trust is (or can be; O’Neil 2012: 311) a sign of respect for others. (Similarly, distrust is a sign of disrespect; D’Cruz 2019.) If true, this fact about trust would make it intrinsically worthwhile, at least so long as the trust is justified. Presumably, if it was unjustified, then the respect would be misplaced and the intrinsic value would be lost. But these points are speculative, since philosophers have said comparatively little about trust being worthwhile in itself as opposed to worthwhile because of what it produces, or because of what accompanies it. The discussion going forward centers on the latter, more specifically on the goods of trust.

Turning first to the instrumental value of trust to the trustor , some argue that trusting vastly increases our opportunities for cooperating with others and for benefiting from that cooperation, although of course we would only benefit if people we trusted cooperated as well (Gambetta 1988b; Hardin 2002; Dimock 2020). Trust enhances cooperation, while perhaps not being necessary for it (Cook et al. 2005; Skyrms 2008). Because trust removes the incentive to check up on other people, it makes cooperation with trust less complicated than cooperation without it (Luhmann 1973/1975 [1979]).

Trust can make cooperation possible, rather than simply easier, if trust is essential to promising. Daniel Friedrich and Nicholas Southwood defend what they call the “Trust View” of promissory obligation (2011), according to which “making a promise involves inviting another individual to trust one to do something” (2011: 277). If this view is correct, then cooperation through promising is impossible without trust. Cooperation of this sort will also not be fruitful unless the trust is justified.

Trusting provides us with goods beyond those that come with cooperation, although again, for these goods to materialize, the trust must be justified. Sometimes, trust involves little or no cooperation, so that the trustor is completely dependent on the trustee while the reverse is not true. Examples are the trust of young children in their parents and the trust of severely ill or disabled people in their care providers. Trust is particularly important for these people because they tend to be powerless to exercise their rights or to enforce any kind of contract. The trust they place in their care providers also contributes to them being vulnerable, and so it is essential that they can trust these people (i.e., that their trust is justified). The goods at stake for them are all the goods involved in having a good or decent life.

Among the specific goods that philosophers associate with trusting are meaningful relationships or attachments (rather than simply cooperative relationships that further individual self-interests; Harding 2011, Kirton forthcoming) as well as knowledge and autonomy. [ 15 ] To expand, trust allows for the kinds of secure attachments that some developmental psychologists (“attachment” theorists) believe are crucial to our well-being and to our ability to be trusting of others (Bowlby 1969–1980; Ainsworth 1969; see Kirton 2020; Wonderly 2016). Particularly important here are parent-child relationships (McLeod et al. 2019).

Trust is also crucial for knowledge, given that scientific knowledge (Hardwig 1991), moral knowledge (Jones 1999), and almost all knowledge in fact (Webb 1993) depends for its acquisition on trust in the testimony of others. The basic argument for the need to trust what others say is that no one person has the time, intellect, and experience necessary to independently learn facts about the world that many of us do know. Examples include the scientific fact that the earth is round, the moral fact that the oppression of people from social groups different from our own can be severe (Jones 1999), and the mundane fact that we were born on such-in-such a day (Webb 1993: 261). Of course, trusting the people who testify to these facts could only generate knowledge if the trust was justified. If we were told our date of birth by people who were determined oddly to deceive us about when we were born, then we would not know when we were born.

Autonomy is another good that flows from trust insofar as people acquire or exercise autonomy only in social environments where they can trust people (or institutions, etc.) to support their autonomy. Feminists in particular tend to conceive of autonomy this way—that is, as a relational property (Mackenzie and Stoljar 2000). Many feminists emphasize that oppressive social environments can inhibit autonomy, and some say explicitly that conditions necessary for autonomy (e.g., adequate options, knowledge relevant to one’s decisions) exist only with the help of people or institutions that are trustworthy (e.g., Oshana 2014; McLeod and Ryman 2020). Justified trust in others to ensure that these conditions exist is essential for our autonomy, if autonomy is indeed relational. [ 16 ]

Goods of trust that are instrumental to the well-being of the trustee also do not materialize unless the trust is justified. Trust can improve the self-respect and moral maturity of this person. Particularly if it involves reliance on a person’s moral character, trust can engender self-respect in the trustee (i.e., through them internalizing the respect signaled by that trust). Being trusted can allow us to be more respectful not only toward ourselves but also toward others, thus enhancing our moral maturity. The explicit goal of therapeutic trust is precisely to bring about this end. The above ( section 2 ) suggests that therapeutic trust can be justified in a truth-directed way over time, provided that the trust has its intended effect of making the trustee more trustworthy (McGeer 2008; Baker 1987: 12). Clearly, for therapeutic trust to benefit the trustee, it would have to be justified in this way, meaning that the therapy would normally have to work.

Finally, there are social goods of trust that are linked with the individual goods of cooperation and moral maturity. The former goods include the practice of morality, the very existence of society perhaps, as well as strong social networks. Morality itself is a cooperative activity, which can only get off the ground if people can trust one another to try, at least, to be moral. For this reason, among others, Baier claims that trust is “the very basis of morality” (2004: 180). It could also be the very basis of society, insofar as trust in our fellow citizens to honor social contracts makes those contracts possible.

A weaker claim is that trust makes society better or more livable. Some argue that trust is a form of “social capital”, meaning roughly that it enables “people to work together for common purposes in groups and organizations” (Fukuyama 1995: 10; quoted in Hardin 2002: 83). As a result, “high-trust” societies have stronger economies and stronger social networks in general than “low-trust” societies (Fukuyama 1995; Inglehart 1999). Of course, this fact about high-trust societies could only be true if, on the whole, the trust within them was justified—that is, if trustees tended not to “defect” and destroy chances for cooperating in the future.

The literature on distrust suggests that there are goods associated with it too. For example, there is the social good discussed by Krishnamurthy of “securing democracy by protecting political minorities from tyranny” (2015: 392). Distrust as she understands it (a confident belief that others will not act justly) plays this positive role when it is justified, which is roughly when the threat of tyranny or unjust action is real. Distrust in general is valuable when it is justified—for the distrustors at least, who protect themselves from harm. By contrast, the people distrusted tend to experience negative effects on their reputation or self-respect (D’Cruz 2019).

Both trust and distrust are therefore valuable particularly when they are justified. The value of justified trust must be very high if without it, we can’t have morality or society and can’t be morally mature, autonomous, knowledgeable, or invested with opportunities for collaborating with others. Justified distrust is also essential, for members of minority groups especially. Conversely, trust or distrust that is unjustified can be seriously problematic. Unjustified trust, for example, can leave us open to abuse, terror, and deception.

Trust may not be warranted (i.e., plausible) because the agent has lost the ability to trust or simply cannot bring themselves to trust. People can lose trust in almost everyone or everything as a result of trauma (Herman 1991). The trauma of rape, for example, can profoundly reduce one’s sense that the world is a safe place with caring people in it (Brison 2002). By contrast, people can lose trust just in particular people or institutions. They can also have no experience trusting in certain people or institutions, making them reluctant to do so. They or others might want them to become more trusting. But the question is, how can that happen? How can trust be restored or generated?

The process of building trust is often slow and difficult (Uslaner 1999; Baier 1986; Lahno 2020), and that is true, in part, because of the kind of mental attitude trust is. Many argue that it is not the sort of attitude we can simply will ourselves to have. At the same, it is possible to cultivate trust. [ 17 ] This section focuses on these issues, including what kind of mental attitude trust is (e.g., a belief or an emotion). Also discussed briefly is what kind of mental attitude distrust is. Like trust, distrust is an attitude that people may wish to cultivate, particularly when they are too trusting.

Consider first why one would think that trust can’t be willed. Baier questions whether people are able “to trust simply because of encouragement to trust” (1986: 244; my emphasis). She writes,

“Trust me!” is for most of us an invitation which we cannot accept at will—either we do already trust the one who says it, in which case it serves at best as reassurance, or it is properly responded to with, “Why should and how can I, until I have cause to?”. (my emphasis; 1986: 244)

Baier is not a voluntarist about trust, just as most people are not voluntarists about belief. In other words, she thinks that we can’t simply decide to trust for purely motivational rather than epistemic reasons (i.e., merely because we want to, rather than because we have reason to think that the other person is or could be trustworthy; Mills 1998). That many people feel compelled to say, “I wish I could trust you”, suggests that Baier’s view is correct; wishing or wanting is not enough. But Holton interprets Baier’s view differently. According to him, Baier’s point is that we can never decide to trust, not that we can never decide to trust for motivational purposes (1994). This interpretation ignores, however, the attention that Baier gives to situations in which all we have is encouragement (trusting “simply because of encouragement”). The “cause” she refers to (“Why should and how can I, until I have cause to [trust]?”; 1986: 244) is an epistemic cause. Once we have one of those, we can presumably decide whether to trust on the basis of it. [ 18 ] But we cannot decide to trust simply because we want to, according to Baier.

If trust resembles belief in being non-voluntary, then perhaps trust itself is a belief. Is that right? Many philosophers claim that it is (e.g., Hieronymi 2008; McMyler 2011; Keren 2014), while others disagree (e.g., Jones 1996; Faulkner 2007; D’Cruz 2019). The former contend that trust is a belief that the trustee is trustworthy, at least in the thin sense that the trustee will do what he is trusted to do (Keren 2020). Various reasons exist in favour of such theories, doxastic reasons (see Keren 2020) including that these theories suggest it is impossible to trust a person while holding the belief that this person is not trustworthy, even in the thin sense. Most of us accept this impossibility and would want any theory of trust to explain it. A doxastic account does so by saying that we can’t believe a contradiction (not knowingly anyway; Keren 2020: 113).

Those who say that trust is not a belief claim that it is possible to trust without believing the trustee is trustworthy. [ 19 ] Holton gives the nice example of trusting a friend to be sincere without believing that the friend will be sincere (1994: 75). Arguably, if one already believed that to be the case, then one would have no need to trust the friend. It is also possible to believe that someone is trustworthy without trusting that person, which suggests that trust couldn’t just be a belief in someone’s trustworthiness (McLeod 2002: 85). I might think that a particular person is trustworthy without trusting them because I have no cause to do so. I might even distrust them despite believing that they are trustworthy (Jones 1996, 2013). As Jones explains, distrust can be recalcitrant in parting “company with belief” (D’Cruz 2019: 940; citing Jones 2013), a fact which makes trouble for doxastic accounts not just of trust but of distrust too (e.g., Krishnamurthy 2015). The latter must explain how distrust could be a belief that someone is untrustworthy that could exist alongside the belief that the person is trustworthy.

Among the alternatives to doxasticism are theories stating that trust is an emotion, a kind of stance (i.e., the participant stance; Holton 1994), or a disposition (Kappel 2014; cited in Keren 2020). The most commonly held alternative is the first: that trust is an emotion. Reasons in favour of this view include the fact that trust resembles an emotion in having characteristics that are unique to emotions, at least according to an influential account of them (de Sousa 1987; Calhoun 1984; Rorty 1980; Lahno 2001, 2020). For example, emotions narrow our perception to “fields of evidence” that lend support to the emotions themselves (Jones 1996: 11). When we are in the grip of an emotion, we therefore tend to see facts that affirm its existence and ignore those that negate it. To illustrate, if I am really angry at my mother, then I tend to focus on things that justify my anger while ignoring or refusing to see things that make it unjustified. I can only see those other things once my anger subsides. Similarly with trust: if I genuinely trust my mother, my attention falls on those aspects of her that justify my trust and is averted from evidence that suggests she is untrustworthy (Baker 1987). The same sort of thing happens with distrust, according to Jones (Jones 2019). She refers to this phenomenon as “affective looping”, which, in her words, occurs when “a prior emotional state provides grounds for its own continuance” (2019: 956). She also insists that only affective-attitude accounts of trust and distrust can adequately explain it (2019).

There may be a kind of doxastic theory, however, that can account for the affective looping of trust, if not of distrust. Arnon Keren, whose work focuses specifically on trust, defends what he calls an “impurely doxastic” theory. He describes trust as believing in someone’s trustworthiness and responding to reasons (“preemptive” ones) against taking precautions that this person will not be trustworthy (Keren 2020, 2014). Reasons for trust are themselves reasons of this sort, according to Keren; they oppose actions like those of carefully monitoring the behavior of the trustee or weighing the available evidence that this person is trustworthy. The trustor’s response to these preemptive reasons would explain why this person is resistant (or at least not attune) to counter evidence to their trust (Keren 2014, 2020).

Deciding in favour of an affective-attitude theory or a purely or impurely doxastic one is important for understanding features of trust like affective looping. Yet it may have little bearing on whether or how trust can be cultivated. For, regardless of whether trust is a belief or an emotion, presumably we can cultivate it by purposefully placing ourselves in a position that allows us to focus on evidence of people’s trustworthiness. The goal here could be self-improvement: that is, becoming more trusting, in a good way so that we can reap the benefits of justified trust. Alternatively, we might be striving for the improvement of others: making them more trustworthy by trusting them therapeutically. Alternatively still, we could be engaging in “corrective trust”. (See the above discussions of therapeutic and corrective trust.)

This section has centered on how to develop trust and how to account for facts about it such as the blinkered vision of the trustor. Similar facts about distrust were also mentioned: those that concern what kind of mental attitude it is. Theorizing about whether trust and distrust are beliefs, emotions or something else allows us to appreciate why they have certain features and also how to build these attitudes. The process for building them, which may be similar regardless of whether they are beliefs or emotions, will be relevant to people who don’t trust enough or who trust too much.

This entry as a whole has examined an important practical question about trust: “When is trust warranted?” Also woven into the discussion has been some consideration of when distrust is warranted. Centerstage has been given to trust, however, because philosophers have debated it much more than distrust.

Different answers to the question of when trust is warranted give rise to different philosophical puzzles. For example, in response, one could appeal to the nature of trust and trustworthiness and consider whether the conditions are ripe for them (e.g., for the proposed trustor to rely on the trustee’s competence). But one would first have to settle the difficult issue of what trust and trustworthiness are, and more specifically, how they differ from mere reliance and reliability, assuming there are these differences.

Alternatively, in deciding whether trust is warranted, one could consider whether trust would be rationally justified or valuable. One would consider these things simultaneously when rational justification is understood in an end-directed way, making it dependent on trust’s instrumental value. With respect to rational justification alone, puzzles arise when trying to sort out whether reasons for trust must be internal to trustors or could be external to them. In other words, is trust’s epistemology internalist or externalist? Because good arguments exist on both sides, it’s not clear how trust is rationally justified. Neither is it entirely clear what sort of value trust can have, given the nature of it. For example, trust may or may not have intrinsic moral value depending on whether it signals respect for others.

Lastly, one might focus on the fact that trust cannot be warranted when it is impossible, which is the case when the agent does not already exhibit trust and cannot simply will themselves to have it. While trust is arguably not the sort of attitude that one can just will oneself to have, trust can be cultivated. The exact manner or extent to which it can be cultivated, however, may depend again on what sort of mental attitude it is.

Since one can respond to the question, “When is trust warranted?” by referring to each of the above dimensions of trust, a complete philosophical answer to this question is complex. The same is true about the question of when to distrust, because the same dimensions (the epistemology of distrust, its value, etc.) are relevant to it. Complete answers to these broad questions about trust and distrust would be philosophically exciting and also socially important. They would be exciting both because of their complexity and because they would draw on a number of different philosophical areas, including epistemology, philosophy of mind, and value theory. The answers would be important because trust and distrust that are warranted contribute to the foundation of a good society, where people thrive through healthy cooperation with others, become morally mature human beings, and are not subject to social ills like tyranny or oppression.

• Adler, Jonathan, 2006 [2017], “Epistemological Problems of Testimony”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = < https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/testimony-episprob/ >.
• Ainsworth, Mary D. Salter, 1969, “Object Relations, Dependency, and Attachment: A Theoretical Review of the Infant-Mother Relationship”, Child Development , 40(4): 969–1025.
• Baier, Annette, 1986, “Trust and Antitrust”, Ethics , 96(2): 231–260. doi:10.1086/292745
• –––, 1991, Two lectures on “Trust”: Lecture 1, “Trust and Its Vulnerabilities” and Lecture 2, “Sustaining Trust”, in Tanner Lectures on Human Values (Volume 13), Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press, pp. 109–174. [ Baier 1991 available online (pdf) ]
• –––, 2004, “Demoralization, Trust, and the Virtues”, in Setting the Moral Compass: Essays by Women Philosophers , Cheshire Calhoun (ed.), New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp. 176–189.
• Baker, Judith, 1987, “Trust and Rationality”, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly , 68(1): 1–13. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0114.1987.tb00280.x
• Becker, Lawrence C., 1996, “Trust as Noncognitive Security about Motives”, Ethics , 107(1): 43–61. doi:10.1086/233696
• Blackburn, Simon, 1998, Ruling Passion: A Theory of Practical Reasoning , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• 1969, Volume I: Attachment
• 1973, Volume II: Separation, Anxiety and Anger
• 1980, Volume III: Loss, Sadness and Depression
• Brison, Susan J., 2002, Aftermath: Violence and the Remaking of the Self , Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Budnik, Christian, 2018, “Trust, Reliance, and Democracy”, International Journal of Philosophical Studies , 26(2): 221–239. doi:10.1080/09672559.2018.1450082
• Calhoun, Cheshire (ed.), 1984, “Cognitive Emotions?” in What is an Emotion? Classic Readings in Philosophical Psychology , Cheshire Calhoun and Robert C. Solomon (eds), New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 327–342.
• Coady, C.A.J., 1992, Testimony: A Philosophical Study , Oxford: Clarendon Press. doi:10.1093/0198235518.001.0001
• Coeckelbergh, Mark, 2012, “Can We Trust Robots?”, Ethics and Information Technology , 14(1): 53–60. doi:10.1007/s10676-011-9279-1
• Cogley, Zac, 2012, “Trust and the Trickster Problem”, Analytic Philosophy , 53(1): 30–47. doi:10.1111/j.2153-960X.2012.00546.x
• Cohen, Marc A. and John Dienhart, 2013, “Moral and Amoral Conceptions of Trust, with an Application in Organizational Ethics”, Journal of Business Ethics , 112(1): 1–13. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1218-5
• Cook, Karen S., Russell Hardin, and Margaret Levi, 2005, Cooperation Without Trust? , New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
• Dasgupta, Partha, 1988, “Trust as a Commodity”, in Gambetta 1988a: 49–72.
• Daukas, Nancy, 2006, “Epistemic Trust and Social Location”, Episteme , 3(1–2): 109–124. doi:10.3366/epi.2006.3.1-2.109
• –––, 2011, “Altogether Now: A Virtue-Theoretic Approach to Pluralism in Feminist Epistemology”, in Feminist Epistemology and Philosophy of Science , Heidi E. Grasswick (ed.), Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 45–67. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-6835-5_3
• D’Cruz, Jason, 2019, “Humble Trust”, Philosophical Studies , 176(4): 933–953. doi:10.1007/s11098-018-1220-6
• –––, 2020, “Trust and Distrust”, in Simon 2020: 41–51.
• de Sousa, Ronald, 1987, The Rationality of Emotion , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Dimock, Susan, 2020, “Trust and Cooperation”, in Simon 2020: 160–174.
• Domenicucci, Jacopo and Richard Holton, 2017, “Trust as a Two-Place Relation”, in Faulkner and Simpson 2017: 150–161. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198732549.003.0009
• Faulkner, Paul, 2007, “A Genealogy of Trust”, Episteme , 4(3): 305–321. doi:10.3366/E174236000700010X
• –––, 2011, Knowledge on Trust , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199589784.001.0001
• –––, 2015, “The Attitude of Trust Is Basic”, Analysis , 75(3): 424–429. doi:10.1093/analys/anv037
• –––, 2017, “The Problem of Trust”, in Faulkner and Simpson 2017: 110–129. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198732549.003.0007
• –––, 2020, “Trust and Testimony”, in Simon 2020: 329–340.
• Faulkner, Paul and Thomas Simpson (eds), 2017, The Philosophy of Trust , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198732549.001.0001
• Foley, Richard, 2001, Intellectual Trust in Oneself and Others , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511498923
• –––, 2005, “Universal Intellectual Trust”, Episteme , 2(1): 5–12. doi:10.3366/epi.2005.2.1.5
• Fox-Decent, Evan, 2005, “The Fiduciary Nature of State Legal Authority”, Queen’s Law Journal , 31: 259–310.
• Fricker, Elizabeth, 1995, “Critical Notice: Telling and Trusting: Reductionism and Anti-Reductionism in the Epistemology of Testimony”, Mind , 104(414): 393–411. doi:10.1093/mind/104.414.393
• Fricker, Miranda, 2007, Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198237907.001.0001
• Friedrich, Daniel and Nicholas Southwood, 2011, “Promises and Trust”, in Promises and Agreements: Philosophical Essays , Hanoch Sheinman (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 275–292.
• Frost-Arnold, Karen, 2014, “Imposters, Tricksters, and Trustworthiness as an Epistemic Virtue”, Hypatia , 29(4): 790–807. doi:10.1111/hypa.12107
• –––, 2020, “Trust and Epistemic Responsibility”, in Simon 2020: 64–75.
• Fukuyama, Francis, 1995, Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity , New York, NY: The Free Press.
• Gambetta, Diego (ed.), 1988a, Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations , New York: Basil Blackwell.
• –––, 1988b, “Can We Trust Trust?” in Gambetta 1988a: 213–237.
• Goering, Sara, 2009, “ Postnatal Reproductive Autonomy: Promoting Relational Autonomy and Self-Trust in New Parents”, Bioethics , 23(1): 9–19. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8519.2008.00678.x
• Goldberg, Sanford C., 2020, “Trust and Reliance”, in Simon 2020: 97–108.
• Goldman, Alvin I., 1992, Liaisons: Philosophy Meets the Cognitive and Social Sciences , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• –––, 1999, “Internalism Exposed”:, Journal of Philosophy , 96(6): 271–293. doi:10.2307/2564679
• Goldman, Alvin and Bob Beddor, 2015 [2016], “Reliabilist Epistemology”, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/reliabilism/ >.
• Govier, Trudy, 1992a, “Trust, Distrust, and Feminist Theory”, Hypatia , 7(1): 16–33. doi:10.1111/j.1527-2001.1992.tb00695.x
• –––, 1992b, “Distrust as a Practical Problem”, Journal of Social Philosophy , 23(1): 52–63. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9833.1992.tb00484.x
• –––, 1993, “Self-Trust, Autonomy, and Self-Esteem”, Hypatia , 8(1): 99–120. doi:10.1111/j.1527-2001.1993.tb00630.x
• –––, 1997, Social Trust and Human Communities , Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
• –––, 1998, Dilemmas of Trust , Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
• Hardin, Russell, 2002, Trust and Trustworthiness , New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
• ––– (ed.), 2004, Distrust , New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
• Harding, Matthew, 2011, “Responding to Trust: Responding to Trust”, Ratio Juris , 24(1): 75–87. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9337.2010.00475.x
• Hardwig, John, 1991, “The Role of Trust in Knowledge”, The Journal of Philosophy , 88(12): 693–708. doi:10.2307/2027007
• Hawley, Katherine, 2014, “Trust, Distrust and Commitment”, Noûs , 48(1): 1–20. doi:10.1111/nous.12000
• –––, 2017, “Trustworthy Groups and Organizations”, in Faulkner and Simpson 2017: 52–70. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198732549.003.0014
• –––, 2019, How to Be Trustworthy , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198843900.001.0001
• Herman, Judith Lewis, 1991, Trauma and Recovery , New York: Basic Books.
• Hertzberg, Lars, 1988, “On the Attitude of Trust”, Inquiry , 31(3): 307–322. doi:10.1080/00201748808602157
• Hieronymi, Pamela, 2008, “The Reasons of Trust”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy , 86(2): 213–236. doi:10.1080/00048400801886496
• Hinchman, Edward S., 2003, “Trust and Diachronic Agency”, Noûs , 37(1): 25–51. doi:10.1111/1468-0068.00427
• –––, 2017, “On the Risks of Resting Assured: An Assurance Theory of Trust”, in Faulkner and Simpson 2017: 52–70. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198732549.003.0004
• Hollis, Martin, 1998, Trust Within Reason , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511612244
• Holton, Richard, 1994, “Deciding to Trust, Coming to Believe”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy , 72(1): 63–76. doi:10.1080/00048409412345881
• Horsburgh, H. J. N., 1960, “The Ethics of Trust”, The Philosophical Quarterly , 10(41): 343–354. doi:10.2307/2216409
• Inglehart, Ronald, 1999, “Trust, Well-Being and Democracy”, in Warren 1999: 88–120. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511659959.004
• Jacoby, Brennan, 2011, Trust and Betrayal: A Conceptual Analysis , Ph.D. Dissertation, Philosophy Department, Macquarie University. [ Jacoby 2011 available online ]
• Jones, Karen, 1996, “Trust as an Affective Attitude”, Ethics , 107(1): 4–25. doi:10.1086/233694
• –––, 1999, “Second-Hand Moral Knowledge”, The Journal of Philosophy , 96(2): 55–78. doi:10.2307/2564672
• –––, 2004, “Trust and Terror”, in Moral Psychology: Feminist Ethics and Social Theory , Peggy DesAutels and Margaret Urban Walker (eds), Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 3–18.
• –––, 2012a, “Trustworthiness”, Ethics , 123(1): 61–85. doi:10.1086/667838
• –––, 2012b, “The Politics of Intellectual Self-Trust”, Social Epistemology , 26(2): 237–251. doi:10.1080/02691728.2011.652215
• –––, 2013, “Distrusting the Trustworthy”, in Reading Onora O’Neill , David Archard, Monique Deveaux, Neil Manson, and Daniel. Weinstock (eds), New York: Routledge, ch. 13.
• –––, 2017, “‘But I Was Counting On You!’”, in Faulkner and Simpson 2017: 91–109. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198732549.003.0006
• –––, 2019, “Trust, Distrust, and Affective Looping”, Philosophical Studies , 176(4): 955–968. doi:10.1007/s11098-018-1221-5
• Kappel, Klemens, 2014, “Believing on Trust”, Synthese , 191(9): 2009–2028. doi:10.1007/s11229-013-0376-z
• Keren, Arnon, 2014, “Trust and Belief: A Preemptive Reasons Account”, Synthese , 191(12): 2593–2615. doi:10.1007/s11229-014-0416-3
• –––, 2020, “Trust and Belief”, in Simon 2020: 109–120.
• Kirton, Andrew, 2020, “Matters of Trust as Matters of Attachment Security”, International Journal of Philosophical Studies , 28(5): 583–602. doi:10.1080/09672559.2020.1802971
• Krishnamurthy, Meena, 2015, “(White) Tyranny and the Democratic Value of Distrust”, The Monist , 98(4): 391–406. doi:10.1093/monist/onv020
• Lagerspetz, Olli, 1998, Trust: The Tacit Demand , (Library of Ethics and Applied Philosophy 1), Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. doi:10.1007/978-94-015-8986-4
• Lahno, Bernd, 2001, “On the Emotional Character of Trust”, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice , 4(2): 171–189. doi:10.1023/A:1011425102875
• –––, 2020, “Trust and Emotion”, in Simon 2020: 147–159.
• Lehrer, Keith, 1997, Self-Trust: A Study of Reason, Knowledge, and Autonomy , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198236658.001.0001
• Luhmann, Niklas, 1973/1975 [1979], Vertrauen , Stuttgart: Ferdinand Enke Verlag, 1973, and Macht , Stuttgart, Ferdinand Enke Verlag, 1975. Both translated in Trust and Power: Two Works , Howard Davies, John Raffan and Kathryn Rooney (trans.), Toronto: Wiley, 1979.
• Mackenzie, Catriona and Natalie Stoljar (eds), 2000, Relational Autonomy: Feminist Perspectives on Autonomy, Agency, and the Social Self , New York: Oxford University Press.
• McGeer, Victoria, 2008, “Trust, Hope and Empowerment”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy , 86(2): 237–254. doi:10.1080/00048400801886413
• McGeer, Victoria and Philip Pettit, 2017, “The Empowering Theory of Trust”, in Faulkner and Simpson 2017: 15–35. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198732549.003.0002
• McLeod, Carolyn, 2002, Self-Trust and Reproductive Autonomy , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• –––, 2020, “Damage to Trust”, in her Conscience in Reproductive Health Care: Prioritizing Patient Interests , Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 65–87. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198732723.003.0004
• McLeod, Carolyn and Emma Ryman, 2020, “Trust, Autonomy, and the Fiduciary Relationship”, in Fiduciaries and Trust: Ethics, Politics, Economics, and Law , Paul B. Miller and Matthew Harding (eds), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 74–86. doi:10.1017/9781108616225.006
• McLeod, Carolyn, Lorraine Davies, Nicole Fice, Leona Bruijns, Emily Cichocki, Hale Doguoglu, Heather Stewart, Austin Horn, Jaclyn Rekis, and Tara Filipovich, 2019, “Time to Attach: An Argument in Favour of EI Attachment Benefits”, report created for Ontario’s Adoptive Parents Association and the Adoption Council of Canada, McLeod et al. 2019 available online .
• McMyler, Benjamin, 2011, Testimony, Trust, and Authority , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199794331.001.0001
• Mills, Eugene, 1998, “The Unity of Justification”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 58(1): 27–50. doi:10.2307/2653629
• Mullin, Amy, 2005, “Trust, Social Norms, and Motherhood”, Journal of Social Philosophy , 36(3): 316–330. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9833.2005.00278.x
• Nickel, Philip J., 2007, “Trust and Obligation-Ascription”, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice , 10(3): 309–319. doi:10.1007/s10677-007-9069-3
• O’Neil, Collin, 2012, “Lying, Trust, and Gratitude: Lying, Trust, and Gratitude”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 40(4): 301–333. doi:10.1111/papa.12003
• O’Neill, Onora, 2002, Autonomy and Trust in Bioethics , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511606250
• Oreskes, Naomi, 2019, Why Trust Science? Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Oshana, Marina, 2014, “Trust and Autonomous Agency”, Res Philosophica , 91(3): 431–447. doi:10.11612/resphil.2014.91.3.10
• Pellegrino, Edmund D. and David C. Thomasma, 1993, The Virtues in Medical Practice , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Pettit, Philip, 1995, “The Cunning of Trust”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 24(3): 202–225. doi:10.1111/j.1088-4963.1995.tb00029.x
• Potter, Nancy Nyquist, 2002, How Can I be Trusted? A Virtue Theory of Trustworthiness , Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
• –––, 2013, “Narrative Selves, Relations of Trust, and Bipolar Disorder”, Philosophy, Psychiatry, & Psychology , 20(1): 57–65.
• –––, 2020, “Interpersonal Trust”, in Simon 2020: 243–255.
• Rorty, Amélia Oksenberg, 1980, “Explaining Emotions”, in Explaining Emotions , Amélia Oksenberg Rorty (ed.), Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 103–126.
• Scheman, Nancy, 2020, “Trust and Trustworthiness”, in Simon 2020: 28–40.
• Simon, Judith (ed.), 2020, The Routledge Handbook of Trust and Philosophy , New York: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315542294
• Simpson, Thomas W., 2012, “What Is Trust?”, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly , 93(4): 550–569. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0114.2012.01438.x
• Skyrms, Brian, 2008, “Trust, Risk, and the Social Contract”, Synthese , 160(1): 21–25. doi:10.1007/s11229-006-9075-3
• Smith, Matthew Noah, 2008, “Terrorism, Shared Rules and Trust”, Journal of Political Philosophy , 16(2): 201–219. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9760.2006.00273.x
• Strawson, P. F., 1962 [1974], “Freedom and Resentment”, Proceedings of the British Academy , 48: 1–25. Reprinted in his Freedom and Resentment , London: Methuen, 1974, pp. 1–25.
• Sullins, John P., 2020, “Trust in Robots”, in Simon 2020: 313–325.
• Tallant, Jonathan, 2017, “Commitment in Cases of Trust and Distrust”, Thought: A Journal of Philosophy , 6(4): 261–267. doi:10.1002/tht3.259
• Townley, Cynthia and Jay L. Garfield, 2013, “Public Trust”, in Trust: Analytic and Applied Perspectives , Pekka Makela and Cynthia Townley (eds), Amsterdam: Rodopi Press, pp. 95–107.
• Ullmann-Margalit, Edna, 2004 [2017], “Trust, Distrust, and In Between”, in Distrust (Russell Sage Foundation series on trust), Russell Hardin (ed.), New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 60–82. Reprinted in her Normal Rationality: Decisions and Social Order , Avishai Margalit and Cass R. Sunstein (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 184–202.
• Uslaner, Eric M., 1999, “Democracy and Social Capital”, in Warren 1999: 121–150. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511659959.005
• Walker, Margaret Urban, 2006, Moral Repair: Reconstructing Moral Relations After Wrongdoing , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Wanderer, Jeremy and Leo Townsend, 2013, “Is it Rational to Trust?” Philosophy Compass , 8(1): 1–14. doi:10.1111/j.1747-9991.2012.00533.x
• Warren, Mark E. (ed.), 1999, Democracy and Trust , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511659959
• Webb, Mark Owen, 1992, “The Epistemology of Trust and the Politics of Suspicion”, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly , 73(4): 390–400. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0114.1992.tb00346.x
• –––, 1993, “Why I Know About As Much As You: A Reply to Hardwig”:, The Journal of Philosophy , 90(5): 260–270. doi:10.2307/2940913
• Welch, Shay, 2013, “Transparent Trust and Oppression”, Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy , 16(1): 45–64. doi:10.1080/13698230.2011.597582
• Wonderly, Monique Lisa, 2016, “On Being Attached”, Philosophical Studies , 173(1): 223–242. doi:10.1007/s11098-015-0487-0
• Zaner, Richard M., 1991, “The Phenomenon of Trust in the Patient-Physician Relationship”, in Ethics, Trust, and the Professions: Philosophical and Cultural Aspects , Edmund D. Pellegrino, Robert M. Veatch, and John P. Langan (eds.), Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 45–67.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• “ A Question of Trust ”, 2002 BBC Reith Lecture by Onora O’Neill.
• Russell Sage Foundation Program on Trust .
• “ Building Trust ”, by Donald J. Johnston, OECD Observer , December 2003, 240/241.
• “ Trust and Mistrust ”, with Jorah Dannenberg, Philosophy Talk , 29 December 2013.
• “ On Trust and Philosophy ”, OpenLearn, The Open University.
• “ The Philosophy of Trust: Key Findings ”, The Trust Project at Northwestern University.

Aristotle, General Topics: ethics | autonomy: in moral and political philosophy | autonomy: personal | emotion | epistemology: social | faith | feminist philosophy, interventions: social epistemology | feminist philosophy, topics: perspectives on autonomy | feminist philosophy, topics: perspectives on the self | friendship | justification, epistemic: internalist vs. externalist conceptions of | reliabilist epistemology | rights: of children | scientific knowledge: social dimensions of | testimony: epistemological problems of

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Julie Ponesse, Ken Chung, and Hale Doguoglu for their research assistance, to Andrew Botterell for his helpful comments, and to the Lupina Foundation and Western University for funding.

Copyright © 2020 by Carolyn McLeod

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2023 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Essay on Respect

Respect is a fundamental value that forms the cornerstone of harmonious and empathetic societies. It is a concept deeply ingrained in human interactions and has far-reaching implications for relationships, communities, and the world at large. In this essay, we will explore the significance of respect, its various dimensions, and the profound impact it has on individuals and society. Understanding respect is crucial for fostering unity, empathy, and a more compassionate world.

Respect can be defined as a positive regard for the inherent worth, dignity, and rights of all individuals, regardless of their background, beliefs, or differences. It involves treating others with consideration, courtesy, and empathy, acknowledging their humanity, and valuing their perspectives and boundaries.

The Dimensions of Respect

• Respect for Individual Rights: This dimension emphasizes recognizing and upholding the rights and freedoms of every person. It encompasses freedom of expression, religion, and personal choices, as well as the right to live free from discrimination and harm.
• Respect for Diversity: Respect goes beyond mere tolerance; it celebrates the rich tapestry of human diversity. Embracing differences in culture, ethnicity, gender, and beliefs enriches our collective experience.
• Respect for Personal Boundaries: Respecting personal boundaries means honoring the physical and emotional space of others. It involves seeking consent, refraining from invasive actions, and allowing individuals to express their feelings without judgment.
• Respect for Nature: Showing respect extends to the environment and all living beings. It entails responsible stewardship of the planet, recognizing the interconnectedness of all life forms.

The Significance of Respect

• Fostering Empathy: Respect fosters empathy by encouraging individuals to put themselves in others’ shoes, understand their perspectives, and relate to their experiences. Empathy is the foundation of compassion and cooperation.
• Building Trust: Respect is the cornerstone of trust in any relationship, whether personal or professional. When people feel respected, they are more likely to trust one another, communicate openly, and collaborate effectively.
• Conflict Resolution: Respect plays a pivotal role in resolving conflicts peacefully. It enables individuals to engage in constructive dialogue, find common ground, and reach compromises without resorting to aggression or hostility.
• Promoting Inclusivity: Respect creates an inclusive environment where all voices are heard and valued. In such spaces, individuals from diverse backgrounds feel safe to express themselves and contribute to society’s growth.
• Enhancing Personal Well-being: Experiencing respect has a positive impact on one’s mental and emotional well-being. It fosters a sense of self-worth, belonging, and overall life satisfaction.
• Global Harmony: On a global scale, respect is a powerful tool for promoting peace and international cooperation. Mutual respect among nations can lead to diplomacy, conflict resolution, and the pursuit of common goals, ultimately contributing to a more peaceful world.

Importance of Respect

• Cultural Understanding: Respect for cultural diversity is essential in today’s interconnected world. By respecting and learning about different cultures, we can break down stereotypes, reduce prejudice, and build bridges between communities. This promotes a global perspective and encourages tolerance.
• Respect for Authority: Respecting authority figures, such as teachers, parents, and leaders, is crucial for maintaining order and fostering a sense of responsibility. It sets a positive example for others and creates a culture of obedience to rules and regulations.
• Role in Education: In educational settings, respect is the foundation for effective teaching and learning. When teachers and students respect each other, the classroom becomes an environment where ideas can be freely shared, questions are encouraged, and intellectual growth flourishes.
• Respect for Self: Self-respect is equally important. It involves valuing your own worth, setting healthy boundaries, and making choices that align with your values and goals. When you respect yourself, you are better equipped to demand respect from others.
• Respect in Leadership: Leaders who lead with respect rather than fear tend to inspire loyalty and commitment among their followers. They encourage teamwork, inclusivity, and innovation by valuing the contributions of each team member.
• Resolving Conflicts: Respect is a powerful tool in resolving conflicts peacefully. It involves active listening, empathy, and a willingness to compromise. When individuals approach conflicts with respect, they are more likely to find mutually beneficial solutions.
• Impact on Mental Health: A lack of respect can lead to feelings of isolation, low self-esteem, and anxiety. On the other hand, experiencing respect can improve mental health by creating a supportive and nurturing environment.
• Respect for Future Generations: Practicing respect today has a lasting impact on future generations. By teaching children and young people about respect, we pass on the values and behaviors that can create a better world for them to inherit.
• Respect for Animals: Respect extends to the treatment of animals. Treating animals with kindness and ensuring their well-being is not only an ethical responsibility but also reflects our commitment to a compassionate society.

In conclusion, understanding and practicing respect is not just a moral duty but a vital element in building harmonious societies. Respect transcends boundaries, fosters empathy, and fuels positive interactions. By valuing the dignity and rights of individuals, we create an atmosphere where cooperation, tolerance, and personal growth can thrive. As we embark on our journey of learning and growth, let respect be our guiding principle, shaping a better world for all

Essay Generator

Text prompt

• Instructive
• Professional

Generate an essay on the importance of extracurricular activities for student development

Write an essay discussing the role of technology in modern education.

Respect in Daily Lives Essay

Respect is a crucial aspect of everyone’s life. Through respect, everyone can act kindly and treat others well. Respect implies putting into consideration of how other people feel. By treating others, in the same manner, you would like them to treat you, is a good show of respect. Most of the people claim to show respect as a very tough exercise, but this is not always the case.

Showing respect can be demonstrated by simple words such as “please,” and saying “thank you” (Wenger 75). Some people tend to forget these words and are essential in our day to day lives. Severally, some relationships have broken due to a lack of respect between partners.

The show of respect is very important especially to the adults, as they act as role models to the young children. If children can happen to witness adults disrespecting one another, through the exchange of harsh words, it would be very hard to correct such children in the future. It is always advisable for the adults to demonstrate the highest level of respect at all times, to avoid displaying bad example to the children.

For instance, it would be a bad example for someone to criticize the other due to some differences, as this should be rather described as uniqueness (Wenger 102). Assisting other people whenever they require your assistance and making others feel comfortable is a good way of demonstrating respect.

Through being respectful, one can create a good relationship with others, as he or she would be able to listen to other people’s opinions without criticizing them. For instance, a respectful student would interact well with other students, as well as with the tutors. A good relationship of a student with his or her teachers would promote his or her level of understanding hence good performance.

Lack of respect may result in regular quarrels between one with his fellows. In our normal lives, errors and mistakes are inevitable among human beings. Different types of disagreements must arise in the normal lives among friends and even family members (Wenger 82). Without respect, it would be hard to settle such differences, as no one would listen to the other.

Hence quarrels would happen. A certain researcher said that differences among human beings are inevitable, as everyone is created uniquely. He emphasized his point by saying that “Judging others against our standard is being egotistical. Respect everyone’s right to be different” (Wenger 112). This is a clear quote to show that respect matters a lot in our lives, especially in the way we relate with one another.

Respect is applicable in every aspect of our lives including political, social, and cultural lives. In any healthy relationship, one learns to respect and trust the most important people in his or her life (Wenger 98). Disagreements may be inevitable, but through respect, one learns on how to stay calm and express his or her opinions.

Remaining respectful would make one be composed and understand the cause of differences, and it would be easier to fix the cause of disagreements. The moments of disagreements in a relationship makes any relationship stronger day by day.

In a good relationship, people should learn how to respect one another for who they are. It is also important for one to recognize himself first, as it would assist in setting boundaries, and promote a good feeling in a relationship.

Weznger, Edwin. Social life: respect and Trust. New York: Cengage Learning, 2009.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2020, March 14). Respect in Daily Lives. https://ivypanda.com/essays/respect-in-daily-lives/

"Respect in Daily Lives." IvyPanda , 14 Mar. 2020, ivypanda.com/essays/respect-in-daily-lives/.

IvyPanda . (2020) 'Respect in Daily Lives'. 14 March.

IvyPanda . 2020. "Respect in Daily Lives." March 14, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/respect-in-daily-lives/.

1. IvyPanda . "Respect in Daily Lives." March 14, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/respect-in-daily-lives/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Respect in Daily Lives." March 14, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/respect-in-daily-lives/.

• Political Quarrels: Satirizing the Dutch in Gulliver’s Travels
• Political Cleavages and French Political Quarrels
• Family Mediation: Advantages and Disadvantages
• Divine Command Theory Definition
• The Global Impact of Divorce on Children
• Social Media Impact on Students Relationships
• The Effect of the Divorce on Children
• Acoustic Communication by Barry Truax
• Organizational Behavior: Conflicts in the Workplace
• Giving an Argument and Having an Argument: Comparison
• What Is a Parent?
• Alcoholic Anonymous Meeting as Group Therapy
• Disabled People Living with Normal People
• Commodity Fetishism
• Reproductive Technologies in US

Beyond Intractability

The Hyper-Polarization Challenge to the Conflict Resolution Field: A Joint BI/CRQ Discussion BI and the Conflict Resolution Quarterly invite you to participate in an online exploration of what those with conflict and peacebuilding expertise can do to help defend liberal democracies and encourage them live up to their ideals.

Follow BI and the Hyper-Polarization Discussion on BI's New Substack Newsletter .

Hyper-Polarization, COVID, Racism, and the Constructive Conflict Initiative Read about (and contribute to) the  Constructive Conflict Initiative  and its associated Blog —our effort to assemble what we collectively know about how to move beyond our hyperpolarized politics and start solving society's problems. 

By Sana Farid

Original Publication: July 2005.  Current Implications added by Heidi Burgess in January 2020.

Current Implications

Though this article was written fifteen years ago, every word of it still applies today--and its importance is greatly magnified. Although Guy Burgess and I frequently quip that "all one variable theories are wrong" (in itself a one-variable theory), the lack of respect given by each U.S. political party to members of the other is certainly an extremely important driver of today's highly dangerous and destructive political polarization. More...

July 2005  

See also our " Things YOU Can Do To Help" article on Respect and the Respect Infographic .

In a class on negotiations and the impact of power , two students in a mock group negotiation exercise willingly walked out of a profitable deal just so that a stronger member of the group could be taught a lesson and be left with nothing. When asked in the debriefing session as to the reason, the response that came was that the man in power was asserting his authority over the less powerful groups and constantly showed an arrogant attitude. The lack of respect given was enough for them to accept losses, provided that the student with power lost face in front of others.

Another group in the same class walked in with extremely different results. The outcome was more equally distributed. In this case, the person in power was asked for the reason. His reasoning was: ‘I know I have power; but I don't need to show it. I have to build relationships with these other players, so it is important I treat them with respect. For it is these small relationships that will help me in the future.'

What is Respect?

Every human being and nation, irrespective of their power or strength, has the right to be respected. "Respect is an unassuming resounding force, the stuff that equity and justice are made of."[1] It means being treated with consideration and esteem and to be willing to treat people similarly.. It means to have a regard for other peoples' feelings,[2] listening to people and hearing them, i.e. giving them one's full attention. Even more importantly, respect means treating one with dignity. Respect is the opposite of humiliation and contempt. So where the latter can be a cause of conflict, the former and its opposite can help transform it. As William Ury writes in his book The Third Side : "Human beings have a host of emotional needs - for love and recognition , for belonging and identity , for purpose and meaning to lives. If all these needs had to be subsumed in one word, it might be respect"[3].

Importance of Respect in Peacebuilding and Conflict Transformation

Respect is the first positive step in building a relationship and relationships are central to conflict transformation.[4] One does not have to like a person or understand his viewpoint to accord him respect. Respect comes with the belief that a person or culture can have beliefs contradictory to ours and we should still honor them, as basic respect is a fundamental right of all human beings. In addition, goals and concessions become easier to attain when the element of respect is present As Bill Richardson, the US permanent representative to the UN put it. "You have to be a human being. You cannot be arrogant..... If you treat each individual with respect, each nation with dignity, you can get a lot further than trying to muscle them"[5]

A case example is that of John Kamm, the founder of Dui Hua Foundation. Kamm has been successful in persuading the Chinese government to release political prisoners, when many others have failed. He has found that approaching the Chinese "with dignity and respect facilitated their response to his inquiries and uncovered a wealth of information regarding the status and well being of thousands of political prisoners.[6]"

Peacebuilding and conflict transformation strongly emphasize the human relationship aspect. Therefore, for peacebuilding to succeed, the element of respect is essential.

Respect plays an important role in a number of ways.

• Respect allows one to build trust with "the other."
• Respect allows one to build and rebuild relationships.
• It provides one with "an entry," into the other side
• Those who are respected within the community are most likely to be able to bring or encourage peace.
• In addition, according respect can make the key difference in the direction of the conflict[7].
• Its presence can lead to a positive change, while its absence may lead to even more destruction.

The presence of respect can therefore create opportunities. It is then up to the peace builder to act upon them.

Thus, for a peacebuilder, it is important to look at respect from different angles. First is the importance of treating parties to a conflict with civility and honor. Once people are accorded respect, they are more willing to make compromises which are long term and sustainable, rather than those that are made under duress. Second, peacebuilders and "outsider neutral" mediators need to look for links within the conflicted society and community that have the respect of the people, such as professors, elders, religious leaders etc. Through these people, the mediators and peacebuilders can build networks and contacts. And through their help, peacebuilders and mediators can begin to build rapport with the conflicting parties.

What Happens in the Absence of Respect?

Contempt and humiliation are the absence of respect, as are a sense of being unheard or not understood . The absence of respect or a perceived lack of respect often leads to conflict at an individual, family and societal level. Since the first key step to building strong relationships is respect, the absence of respect or the breakdown of respect are also key factors in the breakdown of relationships  and in the occurrence of conflict. Relationships and contacts that are built without the presence of respect are seldom long term or sustainable.

Creating Respect

Respect is created in many ways.

• It is created when people treat others as they want to be treated. This brings us to the famous quotation from the Bible . "Do unto others as you would others do unto you". This also brings the element of circularity to it. That is, things are connected and in relationship. So the growth of something, such as respect, often nourishes itself from its own process and dynamics[8]. Be the first to accord respect, and with time, it will develop among all the conflicting parties.
• Avoid insulting people or their culture; instead try to understand them. Many disastrous interactions are characterized by attitudes such as arrogance, disdain, fear of difference, etc.[9] To avoid this, it helps to contact people who are familiar with the unfamiliar culture and can give the peacebuilder guidelines of how to best adapt to the culture.
• Be courteous. Listen to what others have to say[10]. Treat people fairly . All the basic elements "that we learned in Kindergarten" will go a long way to creating an atmosphere of trust and respect.[11]
• Apart from the above, when already involved in a conflict, ‘separating the people from the problem[12]' also allows one to treat the other side with honor. Recognizing that the issue is the problem at hand and not the people can also help create respect.

Thus the presence of respect can help transform conflicts, by providing opportunities that did not exist before. At the same time, the absence of respect can lead to conflict. What makes men like Bill Richardson and John Kamm succeed in negotiations and dialogue where many other fail, especially in their dealings with cultures other than our own? What makes them different from others? Both cite respect to be their main secret. Recognize respect to be a basic human right , treat individuals and states with dignity, and you will receive a more sustainable response. The relationships so established will be based on mutual trust and respect, and hence is likely to last. In contrast, if you browbeat your enemies (or both sides if you are the mediator) then even though the goal may be attained, the relationship will be resentful, and backlash , more than stable peace is the more likely outcome.

Though this article was written fifteen years ago, every word of it still applies today--and its importance is greatly magnified. Although Guy Burgess and I frequently quip that "all one variable theories are wrong" (in itself a one-variable theory), the lack of respect given by each U.S. political party to members of the other is certainly an extremely important driver of today's highly dangerous and destructive political polarization.

One very obvious case that I have used in several other posts in this seminar and elsewhere was Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton's reference to Trump supporters as"deplorables." Equally destructive were Candidate Trump's reference to immigrants as criminals and rapists, and referring to others as coming from "shithole countries." Trump's disrespectful comments have continued (frequently in his tweets) almost daily since he was elected. Rather than bringing the country together as commanders and chief usually try to do, Trump is trying to fan the flames of hatred on all sides of the political divide, and he is being extremely successful in doing so.

The result, unfortunately, but not surprisingly, is continued escalation as many liberals lash back with their own disrespectful speech about Trump personally, his administration, his allies (such as Mitch McConnell) and Trump supporters in general.  This is a classic example of a positive feedback system which drives escalation higher and higher.  So, as was suggested in this essay, and as we reiterate in our Things YOU Can Do To Help and Infographics posts on Respect, respect is cyclical. If you give it, you will get it back. If you give disrespect, you'll get that back too. Giving respect—even in response to disrespect (i.e. "taking the high ground")—costs nothing and can gain much (though it may take a while to break the cycle). 

--Heidi Burgess. Jan, 2020.

Back to Essay Top

[1] William Aiken. "Respect". In CPA Journal. Available online at http://www.nysscpa.org/cpajournal/2002/0202/nv/nv14a.htm

[2] http://dict.die.net/respect/

[3] Ury, William. " The third side" New York: Penguin, 2000

[4] Lederach. John Paul. The Little Book of Conflict Transformation

[5] Szulc, Tad. How to talk to a Dictator

[6] The MacArthur Fellows Program. Available online at http://www.macfound.org/programs/fellows/

[7] Refer to the story from Ghana " I do not wish to in John Paul Lederach's "The Moral Imagination"

[8] Lederach. John Paul. The Little Book of Conflict Transformation

[9] Moore, Christopher W. and Woodrow, Peter. "What Do I Need to Know About Culture? Practitioners Suggest..." In Into the Eye of the Storm . Edited by John Paul Lederach and Janice Moomaw Jenner.

[10] http://www.goodcharacter.com/pp/respect.html

[11] "All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten" available online at http://www.peace.ca/kindergarten.htm and as a book with the same title written by Robert Fulghum. Ivy Books; Reissue edition. 1989.

[12] Ury, William & fisher. Getting to Yes. New York: Penguin Books. 1991

Use the following to cite this article: Farid, Sana. "Respect." Beyond Intractability . Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Information Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted: July 2005 < http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/respect >.

Additional Resources

The intractable conflict challenge.

Our inability to constructively handle intractable conflict is the most serious, and the most neglected, problem facing humanity. Solving today's tough problems depends upon finding better ways of dealing with these conflicts.   More...

Selected Recent BI Posts Including Hyper-Polarization Posts

• Massively Parallel Peace and Democracy Building Roles - Part 2 -- The first of two posts explaining the actor roles needed for a massively parallel peacebuilding/democracy building effort to work, which combined with an earlier post on strategy roles, makes up the current MPP role list.
• Lorelei Kelly on Strengthening Democracy at the Top and the Bottom -- Lorelei Kelly describes the work of the bipartisan Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress which passed 202 recommendations, many unanimously. Over 1/2 have been implemented and most others are in progress.
• Massively Parallel Peace and Democracy Building Links for the Week of March 24, 2024 -- A rename of our regular "colleague and context links" to highlight how these readings and the activities they describe all fit within our "massively parallel" peace and democracy building framework--or show why it is needed.

Get the Newsletter Check Out Our Quick Start Guide

Educators Consider a low-cost BI-based custom text .

Constructive Conflict Initiative

Join Us in calling for a dramatic expansion of efforts to limit the destructiveness of intractable conflict.

Things You Can Do to Help Ideas

Practical things we can all do to limit the destructive conflicts threatening our future.

Conflict Frontiers

A free, open, online seminar exploring new approaches for addressing difficult and intractable conflicts. Major topic areas include:

Scale, Complexity, & Intractability

Massively Parallel Peacebuilding

Authoritarian Populism

Constructive Confrontation

Conflict Fundamentals

An look at to the fundamental building blocks of the peace and conflict field covering both “tractable” and intractable conflict.

Beyond Intractability / CRInfo Knowledge Base

Home / Browse | Essays | Search | About

BI in Context

Links to thought-provoking articles exploring the larger, societal dimension of intractability.

Colleague Activities

Information about interesting conflict and peacebuilding efforts.

Disclaimer: All opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Beyond Intractability, the Conflict Information Consortium, or the University of Colorado.

Beyond Intractability Essay Copyright © 2003-2017 The Beyond Intractability Project, The Conflict Information Consortium, University of Colorado; All rights reserved. Content may not be reproduced without prior written permission. All Creative Commons (CC) Graphics used on this site are covered by the applicable license (which is cited) and any associated "share alike" provisions.

"Current Implications" Sections  Copyright © 2016-17 Guy Burgess  and  Heidi Burgess All rights reserved. Content may not be reproduced without prior written permission.

Guidelines for Using Beyond Intractability resources. Inquire about Affordable Reprint/Republication Rights .

Citing Beyond Intractability resources.

Photo Credits for Homepage and Landings Pages

Privacy Policy

Contact Beyond Intractability or Moving Beyond Intractability    The Beyond Intractability Knowledge Base Project  Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess , Co-Directors and Editors  c/o  Conflict Information Consortium , University of Colorado  580 UCB, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309, USA -- Phone: (303) 492-1635 --  Contact

Powered by  Drupal

Essay on Respect 500+ Words

Respect is a powerful word, and it carries an even more powerful message. It’s something we should all strive to practice in our daily lives. In this essay, we will explore the importance of respect, why it matters so much, and how it can make the world a better place.

Thesis Statement : Respect is the key to building strong relationships, fostering harmony, and creating communities where everyone feels valued.

The Definition of Respect

To begin our journey into understanding respect, let’s define what it means. Respect is about treating others the way we want to be treated. It’s showing kindness, consideration, and admiration for people and their feelings. It’s understanding that every person is unique and deserving of dignity and fair treatment.

Respect in Daily Life

Respect isn’t just a big word; it’s something we encounter in our daily lives:

• At Home: We respect our parents, siblings, and elders by listening to them and considering their feelings.
• At School: We respect our teachers and classmates by following rules and being polite.
• In Our Communities: We respect our neighbors by being good citizens and helping when needed.

The Power of Respect in Relationships

Respect is like glue that holds relationships together:

• Friends: Respect builds trust. When we respect our friends’ thoughts and feelings, we create strong, lasting friendships.
• Family: In families, respect helps us avoid conflicts and understand each other better. It’s like a magic bond that keeps us close.
• Teachers and Students: Respect in the classroom creates a positive learning environment. When teachers respect students and vice versa, everyone benefits.

The Ripple Effect of Respect

Respect doesn’t stop at the individual level; it has a ripple effect on society:

• Communities: When people in a community respect each other, it becomes a safer and happier place to live. People help each other and work together.
• Schools: Respectful classrooms are more peaceful and productive. Students feel safe to express their ideas, and teachers can teach effectively.
• Nations: On a larger scale, countries that respect each other’s differences are more likely to have peaceful relationships and cooperate in solving global problems.

Respect for Differences

One of the most beautiful aspects of respect is its ability to bridge differences:

• Cultural Respect: Our world is full of diverse cultures. By respecting and learning about different cultures, we promote understanding and reduce prejudice.
• Religious Respect: People have various beliefs and religions. Respecting each person’s faith or belief system fosters harmony.
• Respect for Abilities: Some people may have different abilities or disabilities. Treating everyone with respect means valuing each person for who they are, regardless of their abilities.

Respect for the Environment

Respect goes beyond human interactions; it extends to our planet:

• Nature: Respecting nature means taking care of our environment. We should protect forests, oceans, and animals for future generations.
• Reduce, Reuse, Recycle: Respecting the Earth involves reducing waste, reusing items, and recycling to keep our world clean and sustainable.

Famous Voices on Respect

Many famous people have shared their wisdom about respect:

• Mahatma Gandhi once said, “You must be the change you want to see in the world.” This means that by showing respect, we inspire others to do the same.
• Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said, “I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” This is a powerful message about respecting differences.

Respect Challenges and Solutions

While respect is vital, there can be challenges in practicing it:

• Bullying: Bullying is a lack of respect for others. Schools and communities are working together to prevent bullying through education and support.
• Internet Respect: Online, people sometimes forget to be respectful. We can combat this by promoting online etiquette and kindness.

Becoming a Respectful Person

So, how can we become more respectful?

• Listen: Listening is a big part of respect. When we listen to others, we show that we value their thoughts and feelings.
• Empathy: Try to understand how others feel. Imagine being in their shoes. This helps us be more considerate.
• Golden Rule: Follow the Golden Rule, which says, “Treat others as you want to be treated.”

Conclusion of Essay on Respect

In conclusion, respect is the key to building stronger bonds, fostering harmony, and creating better communities. It’s not just a word; it’s a way of life. Respect starts with each one of us, and when we practice it, we make the world a kinder, more understanding, and more peaceful place. Let us remember that respect is not a sign of weakness but a sign of strength, and it has the power to change lives and make the world a better place for all.

Also Check: List of 500+ Topics for Writing Essay

Respect Essay for Students and Children (Importance of Respect for Others)

Oct 22, 2023

Oct 22, 2023 | Blog

In today’s interconnected world, fostering a culture of mutual understanding and consideration remains paramount. The respect essay sheds light on the pivotal role of demonstrating respect to others, highlighting the intrinsic connection between how we treat others and how we wish to be treated. Respecting others isn’t just a simple act of courtesy but a profound way of showing admiration and appreciation for their worth and contributions, especially toward elders. This essay emphasizes the importance of integrating respect as an integral part of our daily interactions, underscoring its profound impact on building harmonious and empathetic communities.

People Also Read

• Political Science Assignment Help Online By Experts
• Write a Literature Review That Stands Out: Why Entrusting the Task to Professionals is Worth It
• Write My Thesis For Me

Definition Of Respect

Respect is something fundamental that forms the bedrock of our social fabric. It embodies the recognition of someone’s rights, space, and individuality. To give respect means valuing others’ opinions, boundaries, and experiences. It’s akin to the golden rule – treating others as you want to be treated. Respect is not confined to age, status, or background; it’s a universal language that transcends barriers. A free essay example depicts respect as the cornerstone of healthy relationships, workplaces, and communities. Ultimately, the meaning of respect lies in the genuine acknowledgment and consideration we offer to everyone around us.

What Does Being Respect Mean To Me

To me, being respectful is about recognizing the inherent worth of every individual and acknowledging their feelings and perspectives. It’s not just about saying the right words; it’s about genuinely showing respect through actions and interactions. We must respect others’ boundaries, ideas, and choices, irrespective of our differences. A definition essay portrays respect as an important element that nurtures trust and empathy. It’s important to respect not only to build harmonious relationships but also to cultivate a culture of inclusivity and understanding, where the value of respect becomes an essential ingredient for a thriving society.

Why Respect Is Important

Respect is an important component that is the foundation for healthy relationships and thriving communities. Here’s why it holds such significance:

• Respect fosters trust: When there’s ample respect in any relationship, trust flourishes naturally, creating a secure and supportive environment.
• Respect encourages empathy: It is a feeling that enables us to understand and empathize with others’ experiences and emotions, creating a sense of unity and compassion within society.
• Respect cultivates positive interactions: When respect is taught to people from a young age, it lays the groundwork for positive communication and interactions, paving the way for a more harmonious coexistence.
• Respect promotes diversity and inclusivity: It’s an important tool in embracing diversity and fostering inclusivity, allowing individuals from all walks of life to feel valued and accepted within their communities.

The Importance Of Respect In School

• Promotes a positive learning atmosphere: Respect cultivates a positive and supportive atmosphere in the classroom, fostering an environment where students feel comfortable expressing their thoughts and ideas without fear of judgment.
• Fosters effective communication: Encouraging respect among students and between students and teachers paves the way for open and effective communication, leading to more precise understanding and meaningful discussions.
• Nurtures empathy and understanding: When respect is ingrained in the school culture, it nurtures empathy and understanding among students, helping them appreciate diverse perspectives and embrace differences with compassion and tolerance.
• Builds a strong sense of community: With a culture of respect, schools become a community where everyone feels valued and heard, fostering a sense of belonging and unity that positively impacts academic performance and overall well-being.

What is a respect essay?

A respect essay is a written piece delves into respect, exploring its various dimensions, implications, and significance in our daily lives. It typically discusses the importance of showing consideration and esteem towards others, emphasizing the role of respect in fostering healthy relationships, nurturing empathy, and building harmonious communities. Such an essay often highlights real-life examples, anecdotes, and practical scenarios to illustrate the tangible impact of respect on diverse aspects of human interactions. Through this exploration, a respectful essay aims to enlighten readers about the fundamental value of care in promoting understanding, inclusivity, and mutual appreciation within society.

Word Respect Plays in three angles

• Respect for yourself
• Respect for other people
• Respect for property

Parents and religious and political leaders strive to ensure that respect is taught and followed.

Parents need to teach children about respect when they are young because they can uphold this moral when they grow up.

This is because everyone deserves to be respected despite their background.

Respect is very important in our society because of various valuable things.

• Relationships are essential in our society, and you can build great relationships when you respect one another,
• Peace and unity are built in the Communities because of respect
• When there are conflicts revolving around our environments respect plays a significant role in solving them
• You will see that when people respect one another, their environment flourishes.

Very Aspect of Self-Respect Essay

A person’s self-respect will determine the amount of respect that they give and receive from others.

Respect is a two-way street. To get respect, one must be willing to give respect.

Respect is a universal value that each person desires not only to embody but also to receive.

Respect is not just what you say but also the way you act. Showing people that you consider their feelings and thoughts is how to earn respect.

If you demonstrate respect toward others, then others will respect you and listen to your opinions.

If anyone treats you in a manner that is less than your worth, you should be able to stand up courageously without fear.

When you have little self-respect, you will not have low self-esteem issues.

The moment you respect yourself, you will also be able to earn the respect of outsiders.

Respecting others essay

Respecting others is very important because it helps us build trust, safety, and confidence.

It would be best if you gave a basic level of respect to every human being.

Respect will bring order to society and make people live in harmony.

It is essential to respect people like parents, police officers, strangers, workmates, friends, and teachers because they are people you work with daily.

The following is a list of ways to demonstrate true respect for others or have little knowledge of respect.

Listening is a very important communication skill.

Being patient while the other individual is talking is respecting that person.

You may not always agree with what the person is saying, but the fact that you are listening to them shows that you have true respect.

Everyone has a superior being that they worship and believe in.

We all have a superior being that we have faith in and worship, and respecting everyone based on this is important.

This is because you do not know why that person has ascribed to a certain religion and not yours.

You will find so many people fighting because of religion as they think theirs is superior.

Most of these fights start from very pure conversations and end up being arguments that hurt people.

Do not force people into your religion because it can be considered a crime.

Having little respect for everyone’s faith is very important and should be able to bring harmony to our communities.

You can live with people from different backgrounds and cultures when you respect one another’s religion.

People in power

Respecting people who are in power is essential.

This includes your employer, leaders, teachers, and many other people.

If you are an employee of a certain organization, you must hold high respect because this is the core value that should be adhered to.

For students, you must respect your teachers and ensure that you do all the assignments that are given without fail.

Respecting property

Respecting other people’s property is very critical.

Respecting property means not damaging or taking something that is not yours.

But respecting property is just using your common sense.

It doesn’t matter the size of the person’s property, whether small or large; you must consider respecting them.

If you need something from someone, you must ask before taking the property.

It is also important that you take care of the environment around you. Do not litter anyhow in the environment. Take care of the environment, for example, by planting trees and flowers. Today’s international environment is facing lots of degradation.

Japanese culture teaches us to respect the environment because they believe that the earth is holy, such as the trees, grass, and animals.

Do not lean on the property that is not yours, for example, other people’s vehicles.

People working in an office do not steal the organization’s property. Do not take anything that you are not given without permission.

Get Help With Your Respect Essay Paper

Are you struggling with your respect essay paper? Look no further. Essay Freelance Writers is the industry leader in providing top-notch writing assistance. Our expert writers are ready to help you craft a compelling and insightful essay on respect. Whether you need guidance on defining respect, discussing its importance, or delving into personal reflections, we’ve got you covered. Place your order today by clicking the ORDER NOW button above. Let our professionals ensure your essay shines with clarity and depth, emphasizing the significance of respect in our lives.

Reflective Essay On Respect

500+ words respect essay, 700+ words respect essay, what is respect in an essay.

Respect in an essay signifies the acknowledgment and appreciation of the intrinsic worth of others, demonstrated through thoughtful language, consideration of differing viewpoints, and a genuine understanding of diverse perspectives.

What is the importance of respect?

The importance of respect lies in its ability to foster understanding, nurture empathy, and build harmonious relationships and communities, creating an inclusive and supportive environment where every individual feels valued and heard.

What is respect in 150 words?

Respect embodies the recognition and appreciation of each individual’s inherent value and dignity, irrespective of their background or beliefs. It goes beyond superficial politeness, delving into genuine empathy and understanding, fostering an environment where diverse perspectives are celebrated and differences are embraced. Practicing respect involves actively listening to others, valuing their contributions, and treating them with dignity and consideration. It serves as the bedrock of healthy relationships, promoting open communication and mutual trust while nurturing a culture of inclusivity and acceptance within communities.

What is respect 10 lines?

Respect is the recognition of every individual’s worth and dignity, fostering empathy and understanding. It involves treating others with consideration and kindness, irrespective of differences in opinions or backgrounds. Respect encourages open communication and builds trust in relationships, creating a supportive and harmonious environment. It is a fundamental principle in nurturing inclusivity and celebrating diversity within communities. By practicing respect, individuals show appreciation for others’ perspectives and experiences, promoting mutual admiration and support culture.

With a deep understanding of the student experience, I craft blog content that resonates with young learners. My articles offer practical advice and actionable strategies to help students achieve a healthy and successful academic life.

• Importance of Giving Back To The Community Essay
• Top 100 Wuthering Heights Essay Topics for Students
• Top 100 Humanity Essay Topics for Students

Most Popular Articles

Racism thesis statement example, how to rephrase a thesis statement, capstone project topic suggestions, how to write an abortion essay, should students wear school uniforms essay, list causal essay topics write, respect essay, signal words, great synonyms, informative speech examples, essay writing guide, introduction paragraph for an essay, argumentative essay writing, essay outline templates, write an autobiographical essay, personal narrative essay ideas, descriptive essay writing, how to write a reflective-essay, how to write a lab report abstract, how to write a grant proposal, point of view in an essay, debate topics for youth at church, theatre research paper topics, privacy overview.

Essay on Healthy Relationships

Students are often asked to write an essay on Healthy Relationships in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Healthy Relationships

What is a healthy relationship.

A healthy relationship is like a good friendship. It is when two people spend time together and enjoy each other’s company. They respect each other, listen to each other, and understand each other’s needs. They support each other in good and bad times. A healthy relationship is full of love, trust, and happiness.

Importance of Communication

Talking and listening are important in a healthy relationship. It helps people understand each other better. They can share their feelings, thoughts, and ideas. Good communication also helps to solve problems and avoid misunderstandings.

Trust and Honesty

Trust and honesty are key in a healthy relationship. Trust means believing in the other person. Honesty means telling the truth. Both help to build a strong and loving relationship. They make people feel safe and comfortable with each other.

Respect and Boundaries

Respect is treating others the way you want to be treated. It is about valuing the other person’s feelings, thoughts, and choices. Boundaries are also important. They are rules that help people feel safe and comfortable. They protect people’s personal space and freedom.

Dealing with Conflicts

Conflicts can happen in any relationship. But in a healthy relationship, people handle conflicts in a positive way. They listen to each other, understand the problem, and find a solution together. They do not hurt each other’s feelings or make each other feel bad.

250 Words Essay on Healthy Relationships

A healthy relationship is a bond between two or more people. It is filled with respect, trust, honesty, and good communication. In such relationships, people feel safe and happy. They enjoy spending time together and support each other in good and bad times.

Key Features

There are some important features of a healthy relationship. These include open communication, respect, trust, and equality. Open communication means that people talk freely about their feelings. Respect means that they value each other’s opinions and feelings. Trust means that they believe in each other. Equality means that they treat each other as equals.

Why are Healthy Relationships Important?

Healthy relationships are important for our well-being. They make us feel happy and secure. They also help us grow as individuals. In a healthy relationship, we learn to trust and respect others. We also learn to communicate our feelings in a better way.

How to Build Healthy Relationships?

Building a healthy relationship takes effort. It starts with respect and trust. We should respect each other’s feelings and trust each other. We should also communicate openly. If there is a problem, we should talk about it and find a solution together. We should also spend quality time together. This helps to strengthen the bond.

In conclusion, a healthy relationship is a beautiful bond. It is filled with respect, trust, and good communication. It makes us feel happy and secure. It helps us grow as individuals. To build a healthy relationship, we should respect, trust, and communicate openly with each other.

500 Words Essay on Healthy Relationships

A healthy relationship is like a good friendship. It is filled with respect, trust, honesty, and good communication. In a healthy relationship, both people feel good about each other and about themselves.

Signs of a Healthy Relationship

There are many signs of a healthy relationship. One of the most important is respect. This means that each person values the other and understands and respects their rights.

Another sign is trust. Trust is like a strong rope that holds the relationship together. If there is trust, each person feels secure and safe.

Good communication is also a sign of a healthy relationship. It’s like a bridge that connects two people. With good communication, both people can express their feelings and thoughts openly and honestly.

Importance of a Healthy Relationship

Healthy relationships are very important for our happiness and well-being. They give us a sense of belonging and help us feel loved and valued. They also provide support when we face challenges or problems.

Moreover, healthy relationships teach us important life skills. They help us learn how to respect others, how to trust, and how to communicate effectively. These skills are very helpful in all areas of our life.

Building a Healthy Relationship

Building a healthy relationship is like planting a seed and taking care of it so it can grow into a strong tree. It takes time, effort, and patience.

The first step is to build respect. This can be done by treating the other person with kindness, listening to them, and valuing their opinions.

The second step is to build trust. This can be done by being honest, reliable, and keeping promises.

The third step is to build good communication. This can be done by talking openly about feelings and thoughts, listening carefully, and trying to understand the other person’s point of view.

In conclusion, a healthy relationship is a valuable part of our lives. It is built on respect, trust, and good communication. It brings us joy and helps us grow as individuals. Building a healthy relationship takes time and effort, but the rewards are worth it. Remember, everyone deserves to be in a healthy and happy relationship.

This essay is a simple guide to understanding the concept of healthy relationships. It is important to remember that each relationship is unique and may require different approaches. But the basic principles of respect, trust, and communication always remain the same.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

• Essay on Heaven And Hell
• Essay on Help One-On-One
• Essay on Helping Animals

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Share full article

Advertisement

On Politics

Trump respects women, most men say.

Women do not see it that way, and that could matter this fall.

By Jess Bidgood

This month, The New York Times/Siena College poll asked voters how much they think former President Trump respects women: a lot, some, not much or not at all?

You’ll never guess what happened next!

A majority of men — 54 percent — said that Trump respects women either “a lot” or “some.” Just 31 percent of women saw things that way.

Trump, a man known for bragging about grabbing women’s private parts — and on trial in connection with the cover-up of a sex scandal involving a porn star — has long symbolized a kind of machismo that to many people reads as misogyny.

But that disparity is important to understand in an election that already seems primed to turn on the question of just how big the gender gap between Trump, who draws more support from men, and President Biden, who leads among women, is going to be. Our poll found that Trump had a 20-percentage-point lead among men, while Biden had a 16-percentage-point lead among women.

“The formula for any Democrat in a close race is to win women by more than they lose men, and frankly, right now we’re behind,” said Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster for Biden’s 2020 campaign. “Having women become as intensely anti-Trump as men are pro-Trump is really, really important.”

The perception of Trump’s respect for women is a rare example of his standing with voters decreasing in recent years. Times polling has found that voters view Trump more positively on issues like his handling of the economy and law and order than they did in 2020.

But on the matter of whether Trump respects women, he has actually fallen a small amount, four percentage points, since the poll last asked the question in 2016.

And that could be a harbinger of how voters’ views of Trump might change as he draws more news coverage, since his treatment of women has figured prominently in the headlines for months. There were the January proceedings of the civil defamation trial in which Trump was ordered to pay $83 million in damages to a woman who accused him of rape. He disparaged Nikki Haley, who was then running for the G.O.P. presidential nomination, by making fun of her dress and calling her “birdbrain.” And now he’s in court over a sex scandal.

“The fact that it’s gelled that much to show up in the numbers is really surprising,” Lake said.

Men are from Mars

I called Ryan Canaday, 42, one of the many men who told our pollsters that Trump has “a lot” of respect for women. He knows Trump is accused of having covered up a hush money payment to a porn star. And Canaday, who works in Ohio’s booming construction sector and said he is an independent voter, is not bothered one bit.

“I absolutely think he did that. I think it’s what he’s done his entire life,” Canaday, who plans to vote for Trump this fall, said. “Realistically, if I had the kind of money that would shut people up, I would be throwing it at a lot of people.”

Trump’s enduring strength with male voters like Canaday is one of his brightest data points. He has the support of 57 percent of men, according to our most recent poll, and only 28 percent of men think he does not respect women at all.

Canaday thinks it’s not necessarily disrespectful to have an affair — which Trump denies — with a consenting adult. And, what’s more, he thinks Trump’s experience in the business world had likely bolstered his respect for women. “He’s a developer,” Canaday said. “Real estate, as a whole, is predominantly women-run.” (The National Association of Realtors says that, while more real estate agents are women, they are less represented in commercial real estate and in executive roles.)

Casey Bates, 49, a chef from Michigan who is planning on voting for Trump, also pointed to Trump’s personal staffing choices to back up his belief that Trump has lots of respect for women.

“He’s said bad things about certain women, but he’s also appointed them to high positions,” Bates said, recalling how Trump had some female press secretaries while he was president.

At the risk of asking an obvious question, I called Whit Ayres, a Republican pollster, to ask him why he thought men were so much more likely than women to view Trump as being respectful toward the opposite sex.

“The best explanation for that is, men are from Mars, women are from Venus,” Ayres said, adding that the best way for Trump to improve his standing in the eyes of female voters was simply to “change the subject.”

Will more women turn toward Biden?

Women are more likely to be Democrats , so part of the gender gap between Trump and Biden is probably explained by existing partisanship, rather than anything particular about the way they see Trump.

But, interestingly, the divide in how women and men view Trump in terms of his respect for women persists even when you look at Republicans alone. Our pollsters found that 85 percent of Republican men believe Trump respects women, while 72 percent of Republican women believe that to be the case. And there is some interest in Biden among Republicans who don’t think Trump respects women, they found.

Take Riley Glissendorf, 21, who said she is a registered Republican who lives in Missouri. Glissendorf agrees with Trump’s “America First” approach to foreign policy, but she describes herself as liberal on many other issues and intends to vote for Biden in the fall — partially because of Trump’s use of “disrespectful, demeaning, unkind” language toward women and his role in rolling back abortion rights by appointing three of the Supreme Court justices who voted to overturn Roe v. Wade.

“First and foremost, I’m a woman,” Glissendorf, who works in a bookstore, said. “I couldn’t bring myself to vote for anyone who not only doesn’t respect me politically, but doesn’t respect me as a person.”

Democrats are hoping that their renewed focus on issues like abortion rights and subsidies for child and family care might help to expand the gender gap in their favor. They need anti-Trump voters just as much as they need Biden supporters.

They have one in Brittany Lombardo, a 38-year-old acupuncturist from Georgia. She is intrigued by the environmental activism of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the independent presidential candidate, but says she plans to vote for Biden in November because she sees that as the best way to stop Trump.

“I don’t think he respects women,” Lombardo said of Trump. “Republicans in general think of women as a vessel and want to go back to the ’50s. Do I want that? No.”

What to listen for at Trump’s immunity hearing

Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will take up Trump’s claim of presidential immunity , addressing a big question about presidential power. It will also probably determine whether or not Trump faces a trial for trying to overturn the last election before the next one. I asked my colleague Adam Liptak , who covers the Supreme Court for The Times, to tell us what to listen for. Our conversation was edited for length and clarity.

JB: What’s so important about this hearing tomorrow?

AL: In a legal sense, it asks the court to decide an untested question of whether a former president can be prosecuted for official conduct, which the special counsel Jack Smith argues is possible . The practical question, though, is whether the court will rule quickly and cleanly enough for Smith to bring Trump to trial before the 2024 election.

JB: Help us listen with expert ears. What kinds of questions from the justices will we hear if things are going well for Trump? And for Smith?

AL: I expect things to go well for Smith, as a general matter. It would be a surprise if the court were to adopt the broadest form of President Trump’s claim, which is essentially that presidents are above the law.

But the only way Smith can get this to trial in the coming months is if he gets a clean win, and if he gets it soon. So what you want to be listening for is how complicated the justices think the question is — how much they think there are distinctions to be drawn on what counts as official and unofficial conduct, and on the question of immunity itself.

JB: Are you saying it could be possible for Smith to win on the bigger question of whether or not a president is above the law, but still not be able to try Trump before the election?

AL: If Smith gets a complicated win, one that sends it back to the lower courts to do more work, draw more distinctions, perhaps even be subject to further appeals, the practical question of whether this trial can get done before the election evaporates. And if the court waits until the end of its term in June to issue its decision, even one categorically rejecting everything Trump says won’t guarantee the trial can take place before the election.

Jess Bidgood is a managing correspondent for The Times and writes the On Politics newsletter, a guide to the 2024 election and beyond. More about Jess Bidgood

NPR editor Uri Berliner resigns after bombshell expose reveals network’s pervasive left-wing bias

U ri Berliner, the veteran editor and reporter for National Public Radio who was suspended without pay after publishing a lengthy essay denouncing the outlet’s liberal bias, has resigned from the broadcaster.

“I am resigning from NPR, a great American institution where I have worked for 25 years,” Berliner wrote on his X social media account on Wednesday.

“I respect the integrity of my colleagues and wish for NPR to thrive and do important journalism.”

Berliner wrote that he “cannot work in a newsroom where I am disparaged by a new CEO whose divisive views confirm the very problems at NPR I cite in my Free Press essay.”

Berliner was referring to Katherine Maher, the chief executive at NPR who has come under fire for a series of “woke” social media posts in which she criticized Hillary Clinton for using the term “boy” and “girl” because it was “erasing language for non-binary people.”

Maher also appeared to justify looting In 2020 during the Black Lives Matter protests, saying it was “hard to be mad” about the destruction. In 2018, she wrote a post denouncing then-President Donald Trump as a “racist” before deleting it.

On Tuesday, NPR spokeswoman Isabel Lara said in a statement that Maher “was not working in journalism at the time and was exercising her First Amendment right to express herself like any other American citizen.”

Berliner, a Peabody Award-winning journalist, called out journalistic blind spots around major news events, including the origins of COVID-19, the war in Gaza and the Hunter Biden laptop, in an essay published last Tuesday on Bari Weiss’ online news site the Free Press.

In Berliner’s essay — titled “I’ve Been at NPR for 25 years. Here’s How We Lost America’s Trust” — Berliner said that among editorial staff at NPR’s Washington, DC, headquarters,  he counted 87 registered Democrats and no Republicans.

He wrote that he presented these findings to his colleagues at a May 2021 all-hands editorial staff meeting.

“When I suggested we had a diversity problem with a score of 87 Democrats and zero Republicans, the response wasn’t hostile,” Berliner wrote. “It was worse. It was met with profound indifference.”

Maher, who took up the role as CEO of NPR in late March, responded to Berliner’s essay by claiming that the veteran journalist was being “profoundly disrespectful, hurtful, and demeaning” to his colleagues.

She accused Berliner of “questioning whether our people are serving our mission with integrity … based on little more than the recognition of their identity.”

Berliner also called out his bosses at NPR for their refusal to seriously cover the laptop story — which was exclusively broken by The Post.

The laptop contained emails showing that the son of President Biden was engaged in influence-peddling overseas — though NPR and other media outlets declined to aggressively cover the story in the run-up to the 2020 presidential election.

According to Berliner, senior editors at NPR feared that devoting airtime to the story would help Trump’s re-election chances just weeks before voters cast their ballots.

Berliner wrote that NPR had deteriorated into “an openly polemical news outlet serving a niche audience.”

“The laptop was newsworthy,” Berliner wrote. “But the timeless journalistic instinct of following a hot story lead was being squelched.”

Berliner also accused NPR of giving disproportionately more attention to allegations that Trump was colluding with the Russian government to win the 2016 presidential election — only to devote far less resources to Robert Mueller’s findings that there was insufficient evidence to bring criminal charges.

After the contents of the laptop proved to be authentic, NPR “could have fessed up to our misjudgment,” Berliner wrote.

“But, like Russia collusion [allegations against Trump that were debunked], we didn’t make the hard choice of transparency.”

Berliner also called out NPR for pushing other left-leaning causes, such as subjecting staffers to “unconscious bias training sessions” in the wake of the May 2020 death of George Floyd.

Employees were ordered to “start talking about race,” he said.

NPR journalists were also told to “keep up to date with current language and style guidance from journalism affinity groups” that were based on racial and ethnic identity, including “Marginalized Genders and Intersex People of Color” (MGIPOC), “NPR Noir” (black employees at NPR) and “Women, Gender-Expansive, and Transgender People in Technology Throughout Public Media.”

According to Berliner, if an NPR journalist’s language “differs from the diktats of those groups,” a “DEI Accountability Committee” would settle the dispute.

Senior NPR editor resigns after accusing outlet of liberal bias

An editor for National Public Radio resigned Wednesday just days after he inflamed the ongoing culture war about mainstream media with an essay about what he considers the news outlet’s liberal leanings.

Uri Berliner, who was a senior business editor, wrote an essay for the right-leaning online publication The Free Press in which he said he believes NPR is losing the public’s trust. 

NPR, a nonprofit radio network, has an “absence of viewpoint diversity,” he wrote in the essay, which was published April 9. It “has always had a liberal bent,” but now an “open-minded spirit no longer exists within NPR,” he wrote.  

The essay triggered a wave of scrutiny of NPR from conservatives, some of whom responded to it with calls to defund the news organization, which receives federal funding through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. NPR says on its website that federal funding is “essential” to NPR but that “less than 1% of NPR’s annual operating budget comes in the form of grants from CPB and federal agencies and departments.”

In a resignation statement on X, Berliner briefly elaborated on the reason for his departure, which came days after NPR reported that it had suspended him for five days without pay following the op-ed’s release. 

NPR’s chief business editor, Pallavi Gogoi, had told Berliner about its requirement to secure approval before he appeared in outside media, according to NPR’s report.

“I don’t support calls to defund NPR,” Berliner wrote. “I respect the integrity of my colleagues and wish for NPR to thrive and do important journalism.  But I cannot work in a newsroom where I am disparaged by a new CEO whose divisive views confirm the very problems at NPR I cite in my Free Press essay.” 

Berliner did not immediately respond to a request for comment Wednesday. A representative for NPR said it “does not comment on individual personnel matters.” 

Berliner’s essay gained traction on X, with many conservatives homing in on his thoughts about NPR’s political makeup. He wrote: “In D.C., where NPR is headquartered and many of us live, I found 87 registered Democrats working in editorial positions and zero Republicans. None.” 

He also criticized NPR’s coverage, or lack thereof, of certain stories, such as the Mueller report, Hunter Biden’s laptop, the origins of Covid-19 and systemic racism following the murder of George Floyd.

High-profile supporters of Berliner’s essay, including former President Donald Trump and X owner Elon Musk, shared criticism of NPR and its CEO, Katherine Maher. 

“NO MORE FUNDING FOR NPR, A TOTAL SCAM! EDITOR SAID THEY HAVE NO REPUBLICANS, AND IS ONLY USED TO ‘DAMAGE TRUMP.’ THEY ARE A LIBERAL DISINFORMATION MACHINE. NOT ONE DOLLAR!!!” Trump wrote on Truth Social on April 10.

Musk wrote on X that the “head of NPR hates the Constitution of the USA” in response to a clip of Maher discussing the challenges in fighting disinformation and honoring the First Amendment right to free speech.

Meanwhile, some journalists at NPR pushed back against Berliner’s accusations.

“Morning Edition” co-host Steve Inskeep shared his take in a post on his Substack newsletter , saying he believes Berliner failed to “engage anyone who had a different point of view.”

“Having been asked, I answered: my colleague’s article was filled with errors and omissions,” he wrote, adding, “The errors do make NPR look bad, because it’s embarrassing that an NPR journalist would make so many.”

NPR’s chief news executive, Edith Chapin, also denied Berliner’s assessment of the newsroom in a memo to staff members, according to NPR .

“We’re proud to stand behind the exceptional work that our desks and shows do to cover a wide range of challenging stories,” she wrote. “We believe that inclusion — among our staff, with our sourcing, and in our overall coverage — is critical to telling the nuanced stories of this country and our world.”

Maher also said Monday in a statement to NPR : “In America everyone is entitled to free speech as a private citizen. What matters is NPR’s work and my commitment as its CEO: public service, editorial independence, and the mission to serve all of the American public. NPR is independent, beholden to no party, and without commercial interests.”

Daysia Tolentino is a culture and trends reporter for NBC News.

Home — Essay Samples — Life — Respect — The Significance of Respect in a Relationship

The Significance of Respect in a Relationship

• Categories: Being a Good Person Respect

About this sample

Words: 639 |

Published: Sep 1, 2023

Words: 639 | Page: 1 | 4 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Life

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 891 words

3 pages / 1204 words

1 pages / 629 words

4 pages / 1894 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Respect

Respect plays a role in everyone’s everyday life. When we go to school we should show respect to all people. When we go home we should show respect to our parents and siblings. We should show respect to all of our family members [...]

In a world that often prioritizes external validation and approval, it is crucial to remember the significance of respect for oneself. The concept of self-respect encompasses recognizing one's own worth, setting boundaries, and [...]

Respect is a fundamental value that should be upheld in all aspects of life. It is essential to treat others with respect, regardless of their background, beliefs, or opinions. In this essay, we will explore the importance of [...]

Respect is a fundamental value that underpins our interactions with others and our engagement with society as a whole. It serves as a cornerstone for positive relationships and plays a pivotal role in promoting social justice [...]

Respect is a fundamental virtue in the world. Respect for each other will avert any misunderstanding between individuals or communities. In the family, there are various reasons as to why children should strive to respect their [...]

Creating a desire to respect the law is a vital step to building a civilised community. In order for the laws created by the government to be respectable, they must be aligned with our natural laws. St. Thomas Aquinas’ theory of [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

NPR suspends veteran editor as it grapples with his public criticism

David Folkenflik

NPR suspended senior editor Uri Berliner for five days without pay after he wrote an essay accusing the network of losing the public's trust and appeared on a podcast to explain his argument. Uri Berliner hide caption

NPR suspended senior editor Uri Berliner for five days without pay after he wrote an essay accusing the network of losing the public's trust and appeared on a podcast to explain his argument.

NPR has formally punished Uri Berliner, the senior editor who publicly argued a week ago that the network had "lost America's trust" by approaching news stories with a rigidly progressive mindset.

Berliner's five-day suspension without pay, which began last Friday, has not been previously reported.

Yet the public radio network is grappling in other ways with the fallout from Berliner's essay for the online news site The Free Press . It angered many of his colleagues, led NPR leaders to announce monthly internal reviews of the network's coverage, and gave fresh ammunition to conservative and partisan Republican critics of NPR, including former President Donald Trump.

Conservative activist Christopher Rufo is among those now targeting NPR's new chief executive, Katherine Maher, for messages she posted to social media years before joining the network. Among others, those posts include a 2020 tweet that called Trump racist and another that appeared to minimize rioting during social justice protests that year. Maher took the job at NPR last month — her first at a news organization .

In a statement Monday about the messages she had posted, Maher praised the integrity of NPR's journalists and underscored the independence of their reporting.

"In America everyone is entitled to free speech as a private citizen," she said. "What matters is NPR's work and my commitment as its CEO: public service, editorial independence, and the mission to serve all of the American public. NPR is independent, beholden to no party, and without commercial interests."

The network noted that "the CEO is not involved in editorial decisions."

In an interview with me later on Monday, Berliner said the social media posts demonstrated Maher was all but incapable of being the person best poised to direct the organization.

"We're looking for a leader right now who's going to be unifying and bring more people into the tent and have a broader perspective on, sort of, what America is all about," Berliner said. "And this seems to be the opposite of that."

Conservative critics of NPR are now targeting its new chief executive, Katherine Maher, for messages she posted to social media years before joining the public radio network last month. Stephen Voss/Stephen Voss hide caption

Conservative critics of NPR are now targeting its new chief executive, Katherine Maher, for messages she posted to social media years before joining the public radio network last month.

He said that he tried repeatedly to make his concerns over NPR's coverage known to news leaders and to Maher's predecessor as chief executive before publishing his essay.

Berliner has singled out coverage of several issues dominating the 2020s for criticism, including trans rights, the Israel-Hamas war and COVID. Berliner says he sees the same problems at other news organizations, but argues NPR, as a mission-driven institution, has a greater obligation to fairness.

"I love NPR and feel it's a national trust," Berliner says. "We have great journalists here. If they shed their opinions and did the great journalism they're capable of, this would be a much more interesting and fulfilling organization for our listeners."

A "final warning"

The circumstances surrounding the interview were singular.

Berliner provided me with a copy of the formal rebuke to review. NPR did not confirm or comment upon his suspension for this article.

In presenting Berliner's suspension Thursday afternoon, the organization told the editor he had failed to secure its approval for outside work for other news outlets, as is required of NPR journalists. It called the letter a "final warning," saying Berliner would be fired if he violated NPR's policy again. Berliner is a dues-paying member of NPR's newsroom union but says he is not appealing the punishment.

The Free Press is a site that has become a haven for journalists who believe that mainstream media outlets have become too liberal. In addition to his essay, Berliner appeared in an episode of its podcast Honestly with Bari Weiss.

A few hours after the essay appeared online, NPR chief business editor Pallavi Gogoi reminded Berliner of the requirement that he secure approval before appearing in outside press, according to a copy of the note provided by Berliner.

In its formal rebuke, NPR did not cite Berliner's appearance on Chris Cuomo's NewsNation program last Tuesday night, for which NPR gave him the green light. (NPR's chief communications officer told Berliner to focus on his own experience and not share proprietary information.) The NPR letter also did not cite his remarks to The New York Times , which ran its article mid-afternoon Thursday, shortly before the reprimand was sent. Berliner says he did not seek approval before talking with the Times .

NPR defends its journalism after senior editor says it has lost the public's trust

Berliner says he did not get permission from NPR to speak with me for this story but that he was not worried about the consequences: "Talking to an NPR journalist and being fired for that would be extraordinary, I think."

Berliner is a member of NPR's business desk, as am I, and he has helped to edit many of my stories. He had no involvement in the preparation of this article and did not see it before it was posted publicly.

In rebuking Berliner, NPR said he had also publicly released proprietary information about audience demographics, which it considers confidential. He said those figures "were essentially marketing material. If they had been really good, they probably would have distributed them and sent them out to the world."

Feelings of anger and betrayal inside the newsroom

His essay and subsequent public remarks stirred deep anger and dismay within NPR. Colleagues contend Berliner cherry-picked examples to fit his arguments and challenge the accuracy of his accounts. They also note he did not seek comment from the journalists involved in the work he cited.

Morning Edition host Michel Martin told me some colleagues at the network share Berliner's concerns that coverage is frequently presented through an ideological or idealistic prism that can alienate listeners.

"The way to address that is through training and mentorship," says Martin, herself a veteran of nearly two decades at the network who has also reported for The Wall Street Journal and ABC News. "It's not by blowing the place up, by trashing your colleagues, in full view of people who don't really care about it anyway."

Several NPR journalists told me they are no longer willing to work with Berliner as they no longer have confidence that he will keep private their internal musings about stories as they work through coverage.

"Newsrooms run on trust," NPR political correspondent Danielle Kurtzleben tweeted last week, without mentioning Berliner by name. "If you violate everyone's trust by going to another outlet and sh--ing on your colleagues (while doing a bad job journalistically, for that matter), I don't know how you do your job now."

Berliner rejected that critique, saying nothing in his essay or subsequent remarks betrayed private observations or arguments about coverage.

Other newsrooms are also grappling with questions over news judgment and confidentiality. On Monday, New York Times Executive Editor Joseph Kahn announced to his staff that the newspaper's inquiry into who leaked internal dissent over a planned episode of its podcast The Daily to another news outlet proved inconclusive. The episode was to focus on a December report on the use of sexual assault as part of the Hamas attack on Israel in October. Audio staffers aired doubts over how well the reporting stood up to scrutiny.

"We work together with trust and collegiality everyday on everything we produce, and I have every expectation that this incident will prove to be a singular exception to an important rule," Kahn wrote to Times staffers.

At NPR, some of Berliner's colleagues have weighed in online against his claim that the network has focused on diversifying its workforce without a concomitant commitment to diversity of viewpoint. Recently retired Chief Executive John Lansing has referred to this pursuit of diversity within NPR's workforce as its " North Star ," a moral imperative and chief business strategy.

In his essay, Berliner tagged the strategy as a failure, citing the drop in NPR's broadcast audiences and its struggle to attract more Black and Latino listeners in particular.

"During most of my tenure here, an open-minded, curious culture prevailed. We were nerdy, but not knee-jerk, activist, or scolding," Berliner writes. "In recent years, however, that has changed."

Berliner writes, "For NPR, which purports to consider all things, it's devastating both for its journalism and its business model."

NPR investigative reporter Chiara Eisner wrote in a comment for this story: "Minorities do not all think the same and do not report the same. Good reporters and editors should know that by now. It's embarrassing to me as a reporter at NPR that a senior editor here missed that point in 2024."

Some colleagues drafted a letter to Maher and NPR's chief news executive, Edith Chapin, seeking greater clarity on NPR's standards for its coverage and the behavior of its journalists — clearly pointed at Berliner.

A plan for "healthy discussion"

On Friday, CEO Maher stood up for the network's mission and the journalism, taking issue with Berliner's critique, though never mentioning him by name. Among her chief issues, she said Berliner's essay offered "a criticism of our people on the basis of who we are."

Berliner took great exception to that, saying she had denigrated him. He said that he supported diversifying NPR's workforce to look more like the U.S. population at large. She did not address that in a subsequent private exchange he shared with me for this story. (An NPR spokesperson declined further comment.)

Late Monday afternoon, Chapin announced to the newsroom that Executive Editor Eva Rodriguez would lead monthly meetings to review coverage.

"Among the questions we'll ask of ourselves each month: Did we capture the diversity of this country — racial, ethnic, religious, economic, political geographic, etc — in all of its complexity and in a way that helped listeners and readers recognize themselves and their communities?" Chapin wrote in the memo. "Did we offer coverage that helped them understand — even if just a bit better — those neighbors with whom they share little in common?"

Berliner said he welcomed the announcement but would withhold judgment until those meetings played out.

In a text for this story, Chapin said such sessions had been discussed since Lansing unified the news and programming divisions under her acting leadership last year.

"Now seemed [the] time to deliver if we were going to do it," Chapin said. "Healthy discussion is something we need more of."

Disclosure: This story was reported and written by NPR Media Correspondent David Folkenflik and edited by Deputy Business Editor Emily Kopp and Managing Editor Gerry Holmes. Under NPR's protocol for reporting on itself, no NPR corporate official or news executive reviewed this story before it was posted publicly.

• Katherine Maher
• uri berliner