An ideology, attitude, practise or action shall be inclusive, that is, it shall include, take into consideration and respect all matters of the field it covers, without arbitrarily and exclusively choosing, or being appealed by, matters of one kind and not choosing, or not being appealed by, those of another kind. It shall not stimulate alienation from specific things due to a tendency of excluding or exclusivity, or due to ignorance. It shall not arbitrarily endow certain things with highness, while attributing lowness to other ones. It shall be as broad in orientation as possible while simultaneously refraining from inadmissible generalizations. This is inclusive theory and practise as governed by the norm of inclusivity. (The words matter and thing are to be understood in their widest sense here. They do not only refer to material things but also to events and phenomena; not only to systems of primary predicates but also to systems of secondary predicates and other predicative systems; not only to nonpersonal matters or things but also to persons or groups of persons.)

When saying that all matters of a field covered by an ideology, attitude or practise should be included, taken into consideration and 'respected', we certainly do not use respect in the sense of thinking high of, treating with high regard or honoring. The principle of relevance --in other words: the norm of inclusivity-- does not as such prescribe any particular predicate of the honor-catena, let alone the, or a, positivity of this catena. It is a practical corollary of the principle tho, that where it is impossible to treat literally everyone with high or with low regard everyone should be treated with neutral regard. Regard is, then, used in the same sense as respect when it means concern (and what is someone`s 'concern' is, again, a 'matter for consideration'). The norm of inclusivity does not require that we honor, but that we show concern --in the first instance-- for everything and all matters we meet on our way. Every inclusive ideology, attitude or practise shall concern, and show concern for, all matters of the field it covers. It shall not result from arbitrarily and exclusively thinking high of things, such as particular sorts of sentient beings, of bodily qualities or of personal characteristics; and it shall not result from arbitrarily eliminating or ignoring other things of a different sort.

It may seem paradoxical but inclusiveness does need a certain type of exclusion, namely the exclusion of exclusiveness. (Compare freedom which needs a certain type of control, namely the control over attempts to interfere with other people`s freedom.) Without the exclusion of exclusiveness, inclusiveness would lose every meaning. Exclusivist ideologies, and exclusive or exclusionist attitudes and practises, are the only matters an inclusive body can never include, take into consideration or respect.

In general we employ, and will continue to employ, the phrases exclusive(ness), exclusivity, exclusion and to exclude in such a way that the irrelevance of the exclusion or the act of making something exclusive is already part of the meaning of the phrase. This usage is not different from that of discrimination when it does not just mean making a distinction but making an irrelevant distinction. In informal parlance this nonrelevance is, or can be, part of the meaning of phrases like respect, regard and concern too, and it definitely is part of the meaning of arbitrariness. Arbitrary is that which is selected without reason, while that which is selected for a reason (even a random distribution) has relevance at least as an implicit criterion. An arbitrary decision is not just a decision made on the basis of one`s own opinion, rather than on the basis of a general rule or law; it is a decision on the basis of one`s own opinion to do something with respect to which one`s own opinion is not unique, that is, a decision which concerns other people as well. When an action solely concerns oneself in every respect, it need not be arbitrary at all to decide by one`s own opinion. But a ruler who uses `er power without thinking of other people`s opinions and feelings is, indeed, 'an arbitrary ruler' as `e rules over others, not just over `imself.

It is easy to speak of "arbitrariness", "respect" and suchlike when it is agreed on already what correct or incorrect behavior would be in the first place. It is when people disagree that a guideline is needed most, and the norm of inclusivity is then not the sole one but an important one. Each question of inclusivity, however --and with it each question of what is 'arbitrary', or of what is 'respect'--, boils down to a question of relevance. This does or did not only apply to rulers of whole countries, but equally, for example, to the person or persons who take the decisions in an office or company, whether private, worker-owned or government-owned. These decisions do also concern the relationship between the manager or management and the workers employed by them, or by whom they are employed themselves. One such decision might be that the employees or workers must dress and/or adorn themselves in a particular way, perhaps even dependent on their gender, if not gender and age, or gender, age and class. Talking of "arbitrariness" and "respect" will then not carry anyone much further, and it might be illustrative to see what role the universal version of the principle of relevance can play in such situations. We will analyze this role in an imaginary example. For the sake of clarity we must leave out other normative considerations than those of inclusivity (or relevance) and truth in this example.