Honor

[SeaCat]

Another zing from one who is otherwise occupied.

What is honor, what are honorable actions? (yes this does tie into my other thread.)

I'll throw you a bone. My personal view on honor. You can disagree with it as you will but it is my viewpoint.

Honor is the taking responsibility for ones own actions as well as the being able to live with ones owns actions.

My own personal code of honor.

I do not strike women except in self defense.
I do not lie.
I do not steal unless that is what is needed for my families survival.
I do not kill animals for sport.
I do not kill another human except in self defense or defense of my family.
I do not mourn those I have to kill in the above circumstances.
If I do have to steal from someone I will repay them when I am able.
Those close to me will be taken care of irregardless of discomfort on my part.
Rape is not allowed, condoned or left unpunished.
I will accept the punishment for my actions.
I do not blame others for my actions.
What I do is my choice, and my choice alone.
I will help others when it does not endanger my family. (Endangering me is another story.)
I will not harm those weaker than myself.

Cat

 

[angelicminx]

Should be an interesting thread, Cat. Thanks.

I haven't really thought about my personal code of honor much. There are just things I do or don't do.

I don't lie, and I don't steal. Beyond that, I'll have to think about it. I'm off to bed. Muah!

Minx

 

[amicus]

Hello again, SeaCat. I can but muse on the destination you have set yourself upon here and in the other thread. And I can only hope to point you along a path familiar to me; for each must choose his own starting point and follow the often tortuous path towards comprehension.

I begin as I always do, with a definition; and I do so to underline the concept of words, from the beginning of recorded history, that they have meaning, absolute meaning, to all men at all times.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/honor

One can choose the source of the definition as one chooses, but you will find that all refer to that same human characteristic that has been identified and codified as, 'honor'.

It is another virtue in the category of ethics and morals beneath the umbrella of 'philosophy', a love of knowledge, and this statement requires an understanding of the word, 'virtue', and I will add, 'integrity', as it is mentioned as part of the definition of 'honor'.

Many of the things you listed as attributes of 'honor', are indeed a reflection of that virtue, but do not offer a solid, absolute definition and many reflect the virtues that a 'good' man might display.

As I implied, whether you choose to understand the roots of the concept, or wish merely to list those things 'you' personally consider thus, is entirely up to you. But know that if this thread matures, it will devolve into each person defining honor as they opine it is; which degenerates into mere opinion.

Bon Voyage!

Amicus

 

[Dragonlipz]

Without having to parse endless abstractions and conditions as those before have done:
Honor: You either have it or you don't.....nuff said....
(If you have honor, you can recognize it and respect it in others and sense the lack of and pity those who don't) - more than 'nuff said.......

 

[Handley_Page]

That's the trouble, ain't it.
Honour (English spelling, sorry), is as much something perceived as anything else. A code of conduct which aspires to keep one out of much trouble through life. The basic tenets of a civil society, perhaps.

I think that where 'used' by a group, reputation has much to do with it (the Honour of the Regiment, etc., or 'bringing the firm into disrepute').

But for me, Cat, you got it bang on. I'm with you.

 

[oggbashan]

Honour as a concept can be abused.

Honour was the justification for duelling.

The idea of family "honour" has been used as a justification for acts that are totally dishonourable such as maiming and murder of women.

The propaganda of the First World War used honour to force men into the fighting services when our government wouldn't take the honourable option of introducing conscription. Women were encouraged to give apparently non-combatant men a white feather to show that the men were being dishonourable by not enlisting. It didn't matter that the particular man might have been refused by the services because of a disability or health problem not visible to a non-medical eye, or might be unable to enlist because he was in an essential job and couldn't be released, or even that he was an officer not in uniform.

My aunt's fiancé, a fighter pilot on the Western Front, was given a white feather in London as he walked out of hospital to return to duty. He gave it to my aunt because he thought it was a great joke. He was dead within a fortnight. She still had that white feather when she died 70 years later.

I think that it is distasteful to try to impose your own "honour" system on others without knowledge.

Og

 

[PMI]

These posts strike me, as though here it is, succinctly put, much of the difference between two very different trains of thought.

Seacat posts what he clearly labels as his personal view of honor.

Amicus posts the dictionary definition of a “word,” a word that, somehow, by pleasing Webster, is beyond debate.

Honor is not a scientific term, that is I don’t believe that one can measure the benefit and pain produced by an action, nor can one define whose benefit or whose pain is most valuable.

As humans, each of us defines our system of morality and honor. We can offer it up to society as a whole and look for agreement, but we cannot define and then enforce what is a value upon the minds of others. We can enforce our laws, “Stealing is wrong, therefore you will be punished for stealing,” but whether a particular act of stealing, using the example to feed a starving child, may or may not be honorable.

The thought of someone laying out their beliefs, and then claiming that they are rock solid, based on logic, etc. reminds me of the righteousness of the Inquisitors.

Thank you Seacat, I respect your principals and see you as an honorable man.

Hopefully, my opinion matters not one whit to you.

ETA: Oy! Ogg, did not mean to gloss over you, I suspect that your code of honor, is also one that I can respect - but don't let your head swell, I am just one human...

 

[amicus]

PMI...

Under the Q'ran, an, 'honor killing', the murder if a woman because she was raped or committed fornication, outside marriage or infidelity, within marriage, can be used as an empirical illustration of 'honor'. As too can the burning at the stake of Philosopher/ Astronomer, Bruno, for the 'honor' of the Catholic Church and dogma.

According to you, every human being has their own 'code of honor', as does every group, every tribe, every nationality, et cetera, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

To what point would one advocate a trillion different examples of honor other than to insist that morality and ethical behavior, is all relevant and subjective?

I responded to SeaCat's question in the same manner I did to a previous inquiry concerning 'morality'. Then as now, the vast majority insists that morality is subjective and situational.

People do indeed, exist in social groups of many varieties, but before any social imposition, we are all, each and every one, first, individuals. We are not defined by the 'group', whatever it may be.

We are defined by our nature, by our existence and those attributes and characteristics that separate us from the animal world and elevate us to the level of a sentient, self aware entity, with free will and the ability to choose between right and wrong, good and bad, black and white.

It is an endless and purposeless debate to compare moral systems of differing values and differing premises.

What SeaCat asks, as I perceive it, in both the moral sense and the 'honor' question, is, "How can I know the moral and honorable way to live my life as a human being?"

It is not a religious question, as in the Ten Commandments, it is a philosophical question concerning man.

I won't even ask you, if you could possibly even be aware of all the possible moral choices reflected by other groups, how you would decide which one to adopt as your own. It would be an impossible task with no operating fundamental premise except perhaps the social one, 'for the greater good', the tyranny of the majority.

Reject it as you may, it is indeed the, 'science' of ethics and morals, a subdivision of Philosophy, a search and love for knowledge.

You may believe as you wish, this is a free country; but when you grow up and wish to 'know', the value of your moral system, perhaps I can be of assistance.

Amicus

 

[Handley_Page]

Honour as a concept can be abused.

Honour was the justification for duelling.

The idea of family "honour" has been used as a justification for acts that are totally dishonourable such as maiming and murder of women.

The propaganda of the First World War used honour to force men into the fighting services when our government wouldn't take the honourable option of introducing conscription. Women were encouraged to give apparently non-combatant men a white feather to show that the men were being dishonourable by not enlisting. It didn't matter that the particular man might have been refused by the services because of a disability or health problem not visible to a non-medical eye, or might be unable to enlist because he was in an essential job and couldn't be released, or even that he was an officer not in uniform.

I think that it is distasteful to try to impose your own "honour" system on others without knowledge.

Og

Yes, the concept of Honour can and was/is abused.
Duelling was as much for personal status (an 'sound' man, who could be relied upon), as anything else. Insults to the person was sometimes regarded as a point of honour, ie., prepared to defend a position to the Death, if necessary.

A Family's place in society (especially feudal) requires (or not so much now; it's being slowly stamped out) a code of "honour". Victorian high society relied upon such things - until there was a real War.

The White Feather was a jingoistic, pseudo-patriotic attempt to shame any male into serving in the Services. It wasn't very well taken up and when it was, there was another 'symbol' used to show that the person was or had been in the service of his country (cannot remember what the symbol was).

I regard it as much as a 'personal civil code' these day. It's that which defines a person to 'do the right thing' when necessary. Examples of those who do not subscribe to this code are MPs who make a right b@lls-up or are caught lying and then refuse to resign.

I think one has to be careful to define 'Honour'. . . . . .

 

[LLs Man]

I've always tried to live my life by a personal code of honour, which I've never written down (though I've often thought about doing so), but while listening to the latest Crüxshadows album (Dreamcypher), I found a pretty close approximation of it in the song Sophia:

Do not injustice to another
Defend the weak and innocent
Let truth and honour always guide you
Let courage find a life within
Stand up when no-one else is willing
Act not in hatred or in spite
Be to this world as a perfect knight
Even if it means your life

I figure if you stick to that you can't go far wrong.

 

[JackLuis]

Cat you ask a question and you got a lot of different answers, because the word Honor, is slippery, as Ami points out.

The 'Honor" you ask about is more in the concept of honor. Does this foundation of belief make you more or less Honorable? The points you made were, in my mind valid and fair but far too simple to describe the path of Honor.

Perhaps it is better to look at the other side and describe what is dishonorable?


I believe it is dishonorable to visit the scourge of war on the innocent and it is a crime against humanity, yet there are situations where War is necessary. So I guess I'm a situtationalist?

Often the choices in life are choosing the least dishonorable thing you can do, because life is not easy for a working man/woman in this economy.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

For me, honor boils down to two actions: DO WHAT YOU AGREE TO DO, AND DO WHAT IS RIGHT. Of course, this means that you have a moral philosophy and dont object to being lynched.

 

[amicus]

]I've always tried to live my life by a personal code of honour, which I've never written down (though I've often thought about doing so), but while listening to the latest Crüxshadows album (Dreamcypher), I found a pretty close approximation of it in the song Sophia:

Do not injustice to another
Defend the weak and innocent
Let truth and honour always guide you
Let courage find a life within
Stand up when no-one else is willing
Act not in hatred or in spite
Be to this world as a perfect knight
Even if it means your life

I figure if you stick to that you can't go far wrong[/I].

~~~

Hello, nice to meet you, and yes, one could not go far wrong with those lyrics to guide one.

King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table, exemplify in myth, a vision of honor and courage that struck a chord with many.

For most of the people of the world, a faith in Galahad and Knighthood, or any faith that gives them guidance is sufficient; or so it seems to me.

But with the Age of Reason visited upon humankind, we are posed with a different problem: that of how to define good and evil and the big one, 'truth', part of the lyrics you pasted.

A fair minority percentage of those in Western Nations no longer look to the Church or to myth of any kind, to answer moral questions; thus we are called upon to formulate a moral code outside the boundary of faith and belief.

As you might well notice, it is a WIP, a work in progress.

ami

 

[amicus]

"...I believe it is dishonorable to visit the scourge of war on the innocent and it is a crime against humanity, yet there are situations where War is necessary. So I guess I'm a situtationalist?..."

~~~

Mowed and trimmed the lawn, filled the bird feeders, even for the Hummingbirds, and thought to sit a spell.

"...the scourge of war..."

Perhaps a subject worth exploring?

Having had my fill of formal war studies from the Egyptian's on to the Peloponnesian War to the 30 year war, to the crusades and more, it is not difficult to understand where the, 'anti war' contingent is coming from; with a lesser understanding, there too go I.

Thanks to the Age of Reason and the Industrial Age, of which many still despair, the weapons of war went Industrial and massively lethal with the advent of The First World War.

In wars between nations there have never been 'innocent' people involved, although there is an argument to be made that prior to the emergence of Democracy as a form of Government, the people had no choice to express their will, choose their representatives and determine the course of action their nation embarked upon.

Enough already of the background foundation for my argument.

Even in a democratic society, within the diversity of opinion, there are opposing points of view; enter those with a moral objection to the very concept of war.

Only a few at the extreme edge of opinion will deny that they have a right to their own life and their possessions. To those, I have no response.

Along with those enumerated rights of life, liberty and property, comes the corollary of the derived right to protect and defend one's life, liberty and property.

The United States of America did not participate in the first, 'world war', until the sinking of the Lusitania and the loss of over a hundred American lives.

The US did not enter WW2, until the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and since the Japanese had a treaty with Germany, the US declared war on the Axis Powers.

Korea and Vietnam was a 'police action', approved by the Southeastern Asia Treaty Organization, (SEATO), to contain the expansion of International Communism with the USSR and the Chicoms supplying arms and supplies.

Iraq invaded Kuwait and another coalition of democratic countries came to the aid of the invaded nation. The current conflict in the Middle East, also a coalition effort, was in mutual response to the terrorism of 9/11.

One should perhaps view the concept of war as an extension of the individuals right to defend himself, to the national level, where the government acts to protect the extended rights of the individual on a global basis.

Those who initiate the use of force to gain the desired benefit, be they thieves, pirates or brigands, of any nationality, must be met with equal or greater force to protect those innate rights of the individual.

A criminal who robs a bank and kills, should be viewed as no different than a nation that uses force to invade a neighboring free nation.

If those who value freedom, the rights to life, liberty and property, do not act to defend against those who would violate those rights by force, then force will continue to be used until it conquers all.

You may 'turn the other cheek' as the Bible says; a rational man would not.

Amicus

 

[neonlyte]

I'm not certain (personally) that honour exists without respect, self-respect is not sufficient justification for implementing a 'code of honour'; l'm thinking specifically of 'honour killings' practised in some societies because a code of honour or ethics is broken. Respect has to embrace the freedom and rights of others for an act to be honourable. It can be honourable to lie if a greater good is achieved by denying the truth. It can be honourable to steal if by doing so you protect someone or something; for example, stealing a drunk's car key so they can't endanger themselves or others if you respect the sanctity of life above the principle of 'thou shalt not steal'.

Honour in battle is an interesting conundrum, a shifting perspective depending upon whether you are on the winning side or the losing side; which isn't to say acts of honour (or bravery) are not practiced by individuals on both side in battle, nor that the overall act of war cannot be an honourable intention, but I have trouble personally in considering the concept of war as honourable given that it breaks so many personal beliefs; in fact, war asks 'you' to suspend personal codes of behaviour for the greater good. Win or lose, some individuals will always disregard both personal honour and respect with the inevitable consequence of descending to dishonourable acts. This attitude isn't necessarily limited to individuals; the carpet bombing, by the allies, of German cities during WWII was perhaps as dishonourable, as an act of war, as the Nazi Concentration Camps, the only difference in terms of honour being that the allies won. I don't say this to alienate Jews or diminish the atrocity of the CC's, but if the Nazi's had won WWII the question of what was honourable in battle would have been painted differently.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I've been pondering this post since cat made it, and I've come to the conclusion hat it's much easier to talk about morals than it is to define one's personal morals.

I have never hit anyone weaker than me, and I've always done my damndest to protect those who need protection.

Other than that, I will lie, cheat, steal, if the need arises-- even though these things are immoral to me. *shrug*

 

[amicus]

Neonlyte...if you take this as a defense of the United States, then so be it, but my information tells me I am correct.

The Allied Air Forces in the European theatre did not bomb cities until the Luftewaffe bombed London. The 'rationale' for this and the incendiary bombing of Dresden, Tokyo and many other cities was to attempt to demoralize or break the will of the Germans and the Japanese.

The use of Atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, were an attempt to end the war without the physical invasion of the Japanese home islands which would cost Allied forces a great many more lives.

In the, 'shock & awe' bombings of Baghdad, only military and industrial sites were bombed in an attempt to destroy the command and control abilities of the Iraqi Dictator.

In the Islamic Terrorist attacks, soft civilians targets are often chosen without regard to innocent lives, as was the attack on 9/11, against the civilian population of the United States.

There are 'gray areas' galore, even with the best of intentions and formalized rules of engagement as both sides in world war two executed prisoners rather than attempt to care for them on the battlefield.

The only deterrence to war or even crime on an individual basis is for those who would violate the rights of another to know that the retaliation will be swift and brutal.

Amicus

 

[Dragonlipz]

~~~

Mowed and trimmed the lawn, filled the bird feeders, even for the Hummingbirds, and thought to sit a spell.

"...the scourge of war..."

Perhaps a subject worth exploring?

Having had my fill of formal war studies from the Egyptian's on to the Peloponnesian War to the 30 year war, to the crusades and more, it is not difficult to understand where the, 'anti war' contingent is coming from; with a lesser understanding, there too go I.

Thanks to the Age of Reason and the Industrial Age, of which many still despair, the weapons of war went Industrial and massively lethal with the advent of The First World War.

In wars between nations there have never been 'innocent' people involved, although there is an argument to be made that prior to the emergence of Democracy as a form of Government, the people had no choice to express their will, choose their representatives and determine the course of action their nation embarked upon.

Enough already of the background foundation for my argument.

Even in a democratic society, within the diversity of opinion, there are opposing points of view; enter those with a moral objection to the very concept of war.

Only a few at the extreme edge of opinion will deny that they have a right to their own life and their possessions. To those, I have no response.

Along with those enumerated rights of life, liberty and property, comes the corollary of the derived right to protect and defend one's life, liberty and property.

The United States of America did not participate in the first, 'world war', until the sinking of the Lusitania and the loss of over a hundred American lives.

The US did not enter WW2, until the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and since the Japanese had a treaty with Germany, the US declared war on the Axis Powers.

Korea and Vietnam was a 'police action', approved by the Southeastern Asia Treaty Organization, (SEATO), to contain the expansion of International Communism with the USSR and the Chicoms supplying arms and supplies.

Iraq invaded Kuwait and another coalition of democratic countries came to the aid of the invaded nation. The current conflict in the Middle East, also a coalition effort, was in mutual response to the terrorism of 9/11.

One should perhaps view the concept of war as an extension of the individuals right to defend himself, to the national level, where the government acts to protect the extended rights of the individual on a global basis.

Those who initiate the use of force to gain the desired benefit, be they thieves, pirates or brigands, of any nationality, must be met with equal or greater force to protect those innate rights of the individual.

A criminal who robs a bank and kills, should be viewed as no different than a nation that uses force to invade a neighboring free nation.

If those who value freedom, the rights to life, liberty and property, do not act to defend against those who would violate those rights by force, then force will continue to be used until it conquers all.

You may 'turn the other cheek' as the Bible says; a rational man would not.

Amicus

More nonsense and parsing, not to mention revisionist bullshit from someone who never faced an enemy of their country.....Wonderful for you that such crap comes off your shovel so easily.....
See, it's easy if you've never had to engage or kill another human being....not so easy to live with it 40 years later......
You have the convenience of never having had to to live or die for your country.....what a luxury.....and you speak with the arrogance and cowardice that those who never had to defend that right can.....You and Dick Cheney.....perfect pair of twits

 

[neonlyte]

Neonlyte...if you take this as a defense of the United States, then so be it, but my information tells me I am correct.

The Allied Air Forces in the European theatre did not bomb cities until the Luftewaffe bombed London. The 'rationale' for this and the incendiary bombing of Dresden, Tokyo and many other cities was to attempt to demoralize or break the will of the Germans and the Japanese.

The use of Atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, were an attempt to end the war without the physical invasion of the Japanese home islands which would cost Allied forces a great many more lives.

In the, 'shock & awe' bombings of Baghdad, only military and industrial sites were bombed in an attempt to destroy the command and control abilities of the Iraqi Dictator.

In the Islamic Terrorist attacks, soft civilians targets are often chosen without regard to innocent lives, as was the attack on 9/11, against the civilian population of the United States.

There are 'gray areas' galore, even with the best of intentions and formalized rules of engagement as both sides in world war two executed prisoners rather than attempt to care for them on the battlefield.

The only deterrence to war or even crime on an individual basis is for those who would violate the rights of another to know that the retaliation will be swift and brutal.

Amicus

Ami,
I don't dispute the mechanics, nor the intention, of the carpet bombing of population centers in WWII. I merely point out that, from a victors view point, the action can be justified as 'honourable'. Shortened the war, demoralized the enemy, etc, etc, we know all the arguments. I remember visiting Hamburg, Germany, in the early seventies and can vividly recall the open hostility of Germans in the street to the Union flag adorning my rucksack. Someone who gave me a lift - I was hitch-hiking - advised me to remove the flag if I wanted to avoid trouble, the carpet bombing of Hamburg was still then, thirty years later, regarded as a dishonourable act of war by the defeated.

It's part of the problem with retaliation, though I fully understand the standpoint you make, it doesn't necessarily work unless the act of retaliation is so overwhelming that compliance with the victor is guaranteed. It was common in ancient times to kill everyone who might pose a threat to an invader, it was less troublesome in the long run, and they didn't have the media filming their every move. That type of invader didn't content themselves with making history, they destroyed the history of the vanquished, re-writing the story to justify their actions on the field of battle.

It's quite hard to think of one 'battle' since WWII where force of arms has actually brought peace. It would be cruel to cite Vietnam as a case since the communist north was clearly inferior in terms of 'force of arms', but that war was probably the first media controlled outcome where the purpose of war was undermined, not so much by the enemy, but by the disillusionment of the home populations of the Allied forces. The story became the 'body bags' and not what was being fought for. Similarly, communist Eastern Europe 'surrendered' not through force of arms but by a change of will of populations who eventually realised the former USSR could not impose Martial Order in the face of media scrutiny. Yugoslavia dissolved into warring satellite states once Tito's authority crumbled, and whilst the allies intervened to limit atrocities between the newly formed nations, it was the desire for peace within and between the ethnic populations of the region that outweighed the desire for war. Northern Ireland is more of the same; terrorism didn't work, force of arms didn't work. Talking worked because of the desire for peace in the population. One might say Northern Ireland found an honourable solution to its differences.

The various populations of the Middle East and the action of allied forces against terrorists, insurgents and fundamentalists are yet to engage in a dialogue that will lead to a lasting peace. I find it hard to justify the actions of any of the engaged parties in the region as honourable, the media blew a hole in honour in that corner of the world starting with WMD's and finishing with the rape and murder of a family as reported this week. It won't be the last such case to see the light of day. Any honourable intention of the allies in the Middle East is continuously being undermined from a multitude of directions: body bags, media reporting, atrocities committed, and, most importantly, the lack of a solution. Force of arms isn't working. Who's to say the carefully orchestrated British withdrawal from Basra last week actually reflected 'goodwill' from the Iraqi's for a job well done, or if it was public relations managed to present honour in the face of retreat? Where is the honour in patrolling the streets of a foreign land in armoured vehicles subjected to roadside bombs, sniper fire, and stone throwing children?

Acting for the greater good is a conceptual premise. It has logic, undoubtedly, but only if the outcome is overwhelming, and I doubt anyone has the stomach for that kind of honour.