Acharya Prashant addresses the question of whether one should respect elders even if their actions are not respectable. He begins by asking for a definition of respect, distinguishing between politeness and genuine respect. He explains that talking politely and properly is a form of basic etiquette that should be unconditionally extended to everyone, even a crime convict. This politeness and propriety are not dependent on the other person and are not intimately connected to respect. Respect, as defined by the speaker, is having a genuine appreciation for a person and valuing them highly. If you clearly see that a person has very little that can be highly valued, there is no compulsion to accord them high importance or respect. The speaker points out that the questioner's dilemma arises from her own value system, where she values societal acceptance. She fears being frowned upon for not respecting elders, which indicates that she values being liked and accepted by others. This leads to the core of the issue: one must first know for oneself what is truly valuable. Before assessing or valuing someone else, one must have inner clarity about what is valuable in life. The speaker encourages developing a solid, universal standard of values. He identifies qualities like kindness, compassion, generosity, and magnanimity as respectable. Conversely, being exploitative is not respectable, regardless of a person's age, designation, or relationship. He also highlights the value of having the courage to fight against odds for a just cause, and the integrity to be true to oneself. He cautions that behavior can be deceptive and that a semblance of kindness can be faked. Therefore, one must look beyond superficial patterns and use intelligence, not just vague feelings or instincts, to determine who is truly respectable. Respect is for that which is higher than you, and by getting close to it, you can also rise.