Deontology encompasses duty and obligation, the sort that we both feel when confronted with a respectful person, or person we respect. That ties in with our (likely) mutual understanding ofrespect. The hypothetical value neutrality of desert isn't an issue of whether or not the moral field is different (because of different moral values, whatever that's taken to mean and if..and only if, they actually exist between subjects to compare)- but whether the same patterns of desert can, broadly, be identified in any moral field. If certain features of any landscape indicate the presence or suggest the course of water, to use an intuitively satisfying equivocation. It doesn't matter whether the values of our field are desert values, alpine values, lowland hardwood hammock, etc etc etc. If there's some underlying calculus that can compellingly describe and predict human opinions of the disparity between desert and outcomes - then that calculus can be used with any range of moral values. This is all that's meant to be expressed or taken by the use of the term value neutrality in context. I'm willing to bet five bucks that we actually agree, here.
I think that the common definition of respect is serviceable. Assigning value to and expressing due regard for a person; their qualities, abilities, and achievements. Same as you described. I may not assign the same values that you do. For example...I don't think that joining for a paycheck is a modifying criteria. All professional soldiers join for a paycheck, and it's not clear why a profit motive is disqualifying in any context. Still, I do think that joining holds a value, and I do hold a concept of modifying criteria that can decrease "due regard" for any act of value (and a complimentary one that can increase it). We may not agree on the exact specifications of "the wrong reasons" but we agree that there's a general shape of wrong reason™ at play, which modifies our sense of obligation towards that person.
Something interesting about our shared position, is the implicit claim that equality is not a uniform good. Two people did the same thing, we have equality of act...and yet both of us contend (or at least can contend) that any outcome that leads to them both enjoying the same level of respect, equality of outcome, is a sub-optimal product.
I think that the common definition of respect is serviceable. Assigning value to and expressing due regard for a person; their qualities, abilities, and achievements. Same as you described. I may not assign the same values that you do. For example...I don't think that joining for a paycheck is a modifying criteria. All professional soldiers join for a paycheck, and it's not clear why a profit motive is disqualifying in any context. Still, I do think that joining holds a value, and I do hold a concept of modifying criteria that can decrease "due regard" for any act of value (and a complimentary one that can increase it). We may not agree on the exact specifications of "the wrong reasons" but we agree that there's a general shape of wrong reason™ at play, which modifies our sense of obligation towards that person.
Something interesting about our shared position, is the implicit claim that equality is not a uniform good. Two people did the same thing, we have equality of act...and yet both of us contend (or at least can contend) that any outcome that leads to them both enjoying the same level of respect, equality of outcome, is a sub-optimal product.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
