Honour?

[singo]

Well, continuing a discussion that started cluttering up someones RP thread.

A question, or several.

Do you consider "Honour" an important human characteristic?, do you think it is important to conduct yourself with honour, and how do you define it anyway?

I personally define honour as doing what you think is right, not doing harm to innocents, not being underhanded in dealings with others and doing ones best to stop others who would do such. Rather basic I know.

I do believe it is important and, indeed, think it is an essential component of decency. Possibly the major component.

Honour need not involve fighting. Indeed, when it gets tangled up in that sort of thing it tends to lead, regrettably, to the word glory. Which really should not be used to describe conflict.

So, thoughts on the concept of honour?

[iHawk]

I would 'like' to say that I am always honourable, but that wouldn't be true. I think that honour is something that almost every human being wants to have, but that not many actually do.

To me honour is protecting what is important to you, may that be religion, a country or even just one person. It is also knowing what is right and what is wrong and doing what is needed to uphold the difference between the two. In war, or any conflict, it's protecting innocents no matter who they are, never kicking a man when he's down and knowing that sometimes it is better to forgive and forget instead of killing the one that did wrong.

That almost sums up what honour is to me. It was my RP BTW

[Ragnarox]

Crap, well I really went and did it this time haven't I...no turning back now.

I personally define honour as doing what you think is right, not doing harm to innocents, not being underhanded in dealings with others and doing ones best to stop others who would do such. Rather basic I know.


I have a question thats been nagging me for a while. If part of the concept of "honor" means doing what you think is "right" doesn't that open a door to all the possibilities of what many people would consider "evil?" What if you thought it was "right" to harm innocents? What if you thought it was "right" to make an underhanded dealing? What if you thought it was right to kick a man when he was on the ground.

I show serious distaste for the words "right" and "wrong" because they are purely relative terms. The concept of "right" and "wrong" is directly dependent upon what a person's ethics are, although many people refer to simple social norms.

What if you had to do something that is classified as being the worst "evil" in social norms in order to do something "honorable" for others? Say, what if in a war, you had to sacrifice the lives of several innocents to save hundreds of others? What if you had to kick a man while he was down in order to incapacitate him to the extent where he cannot use deadly force against you or another? What if you had to split a country you love so much apart in order to protect it? Is this dishonorable, or are they "acceptable losses" or "collateral damage?"

Personally, I don't believe honor is a basic human instinct and was instead, created due to the effects that a certian social structure had on its people in a certian period of time. Therefore, like everything that is man made, it has flaws. Instincts on the other hand, like the breathing, are flawless, because you can ALWAYS breathe (although that does not mean certian substances or mixtures are good to breathe in).

[iHawk]

So by what you're saying, honour is defined by the beholder. While I see protecting innocents as honourable others might see just not killing innocents as honourable. Much like any word in any language it can be defined in so many different ways that it doesn't really have a meaning. However you didn't actually state how you would define honour Ragnarox, I know you said you don't believe it's an instinct but what do you see as honourable

[singo]

I have a question thats been nagging me for a while. If part of the concept of "honor" means doing what you think is "right" doesn't that open a door to all the possibilities of what many people would consider "evil?" What if you thought it was "right" to harm innocents? What if you thought it was "right" to make an underhanded dealing? What if you thought it was right to kick a man when he was on the ground.

Well then, by your concepts you would not be doing wrong then. Unfortunately, nor is right or wrong defined by the majority so arriving at a single all-encompassing definition of the word would be very difficult.

Let us say that both the "good" man and the "evil" one both therefore have honour. Its a tricky concept I know...



I show serious distaste for the words "right" and "wrong" because they are purely relative terms. The concept of "right" and "wrong" is directly dependent upon what a person's ethics are, although many people refer to simple social norms.

Yes, agreed. But on the other hand there are not any better words that I can see.


What if you had to do something that is classified as being the worst "evil" in social norms in order to do something "honorable" for others? Say, what if in a war, you had to sacrifice the lives of several innocents to save hundreds of others?

I would hope that I would be able to make the choice to sacrifice the several rather than the many. However, having never been in such a situation (for which I am thankful) I cannot say. I believe it should be done however.


What if you had to kick a man while he was down in order to incapacitate him to the extent where he cannot use deadly force against you or another? What if you had to split a country you love so much apart in order to protect it? Is this dishonorable, or are they "acceptable losses" or "collateral damage?"


Again, then kick him, split the country. Actually, the country one may have relevance to the situation in iraq. I read a newspaper article that said it may be that the only way to get at least SOME peace in Iraq would be to split it back into the three nations it used to be.


Personally, I don't believe honor is a basic human instinct and was instead, created due to the effects that a certian social structure had on its people in a certian period of time.

Oh definately. Very few things are instinctive. Protecting others (not from the immediate family group) is a reaction created by society. Hell, apart from eat, drink, shit and runaway from things with teeth almost nothing is instinctive.

[Ragnarox]

So by what you're saying, honour is defined by the beholder.

Percisely, however usually many people refer to history or to their society for a concept of "honor."

While I see protecting innocents as honourable others might see just not killing innocents as honourable.

Yeah that too, but I'm asking, what if somebody saw actually killing innocents as honorable?

I know you said you don't believe it's an instinct but what do you see as honourable?

I usually don't, although I do believe in a concept of, "For the Greater Good" to an extent, but because I have a very vauge definition in relation to the word "good" it's still remote from the predominant concept of "honor."

Singo: Judging from your response to several of my questions, I believe what your saying is "honor" is closely related to compromise in that it is typical to sacrifice a portion in order to save the whole? As in, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." Am I wrong in this assessment?

Actually, the country one may have relevance to the situation in iraq. I read a newspaper article that said it may be that the only way to get at least SOME peace in Iraq would be to split it back into the three nations it used to be.


Eh, don't count on it. I'm betting that the entire situation is going to go to hell in a handbasket before long, I think its inevitable, pardon my pessimism.

[singo]

Yeah that too, but I'm asking, what if somebody saw actually killing innocents as honorable?

Then it would be honourable, just not by other peoples concepts of honour, but by that person's judgement yes. Although they would probably not see them as innocent.



Singo: Judging from your response to several of my questions, I believe what your saying is "honor" is closely related to compromise in that it is typical to sacrifice a portion in order to save the whole? As in, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." Am I wrong in this assessment?

Yes, to an extent, I.E, if the many are worth saving. But again, my views of who is worth saving will differ (a hell of a lot) from most people's And it also has to be needs rather than wants. But again, just my definition.



Eh, don't count on it. I'm betting that the entire situation is going to go to hell in a handbasket before long, I think its inevitable, pardon my pessimism.

Yeah, that is likely. But if it IS split (bear in mind it won't be, politics....) it would calm down slightly....until one of the new countries declared war on the other two.

[GenocideAlive]

Honor is based on a concept of morality. QED this is pretty much a proxy morality discussion.