Does Respecting a Person Require Respecting Their View?

Respecting a person does not mean judging every one of their views to be reasonable. Suppose a colleague offers an unsupported claim in a meeting. You can let them explain it fully, check that you have not distorted their reasons, and then disagree plainly. What receives respect is their standing as someone capable of offering reasons and answering criticism, not an automatic certificate of quality for the claim.

Kant placed the idea of persons as ends at the centre of moral philosophy: a person must not be treated merely as a tool for someone else’s purposes. This historical view requires recognition of personhood and autonomy, but it does not imply that every opinion merits approval. Contemporary philosophy often distinguishes recognition respect from appraisal respect. The former gives appropriate weight to a person’s rights, situation and standing to speak; the latter depends on whether their character, conduct or argument meets relevant standards.

My view is that respect in disagreement requires at least three things: do not humiliate the speaker, do not use identity as a substitute for reasons, and remain willing to revise your judgement when better evidence appears. Respect still permits us to identify a faulty inference, give less weight to an unreliable claim, or reject its conclusion. If respect means never objecting, discussion becomes a polite performance. If criticism denies the other person’s standing as an equal participant, inquiry becomes domination. The hard task is to preserve equal standing among people while recognising unequal quality among views.

Source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/respect/