Your thoughts on honour.

[rengadeirishman]

believe in it? dont believe in it? hate it? love it? indifferent? what your concept of what it is?

Im all of a quiver with curiosity

 

[S-Des]

I'm against it.

 

[rengadeirishman]

I'm against it.

any reason?

 

[S-Des]

any reason?

Oops, I haven't had my coffee and thought this said "humour".

I'm very much lost in the, "Knight in shining armor" syndrome. I spent years trying to help girls who "needed" it, only to find that they usually got themselves into chaotic situations on purpose. Now that I have a daughter, I try to instill in her every day that she deserves someone (even as friends) who will treat her with respect. I think the coursening of our cuture has greatly diminished the way men look at honour, at least as it applies to women. As for honour between men . . . meh, not so much. I do try to live my life by my word, so people never have to ask if I really mean it.

 

[Wildcard Ky]

I am all for honor. It's a concept that I hold very deep. My honor is VERY important to me. I think it's a trait that is becoming lost in modern society though.

I can't explain why it's so important to me, it just is. My word is my most valuable commodity. Anyone that knows me knows that I keep my word.

 

[rengadeirishman]

Thats how i feel. My oath is my bound, and my loyalty, once sworn, is binding unto death.

 

[rgraham666]

I hold to my ethics. A slightly different thing than honour, less tied to ego than honour too often is.

 

[trysail]

You're goddamned right I believe in it, though I'm not a hundred percent certain that I can define it. It's part honesty, part integrity, part loyalty. It takes years and years of acquaintence and observation of behavior to tell with a high degree of certainty whether another individual is possessed of it. I don't believe there is such a thing as being "partially" or "mainly" honest. As a generality, I accord people the "benefit of doubt" but it only takes one or two breeches before that allowance is forfeit.

Hono(u)rable individuals and behavior have become incredibly rare, in part because of the transient nature of our (U.S.) society, its transformation from a culture of "rugged individualism" to one where groups/organizations predominate, and its homogenization. I am one of those increasingly rare people who has, essentially, lived my entire life in one area, as did my father before me. It's a place where many people tend to stick around. I went to school with the same people for many, many years and ended up going through eighteen consecutive years with some of 'em. I knew their parents, my parents knew their parents, I know their siblings, I know the houses they were born and lived in. Everybody knows who the liars and the cheats are. Everybody knows which ones worship money and which ones have and will exchang hono(u)r for gain. It's a close-knit community, though less so than it used to be due to the numerous sales of local companies that have occurred in the last couple of decades. The buyers tend to parachute auslanders in; many tend to be infected with values that are either very different or, in some cases, nonexistent. I describe many of 'em as, "promiscuous whore liars." They'll drop you like a bad habit or stab you in the back the moment they come across a "BBD" (Bigger and Better Deal).

The horrible truth is that if one is part of a group/organization, an individual usually doesn't have the legal or operational authority to bind that group/organization. The asymmetry between authority and responsibility can place people in the uncomfortable position of promising things they can't deliver. Their word can never be taken and the concept of hono(u)r, per force, is either alien to them or they are incapable of functioning in such an environment.

 

[sister76]

Thats how i feel. My oath is my bound, and my loyalty, once sworn, is binding unto death.

That's how I am, too, but I am coming to believe that thinking like that may actually not be all that healthy.

 

[BlackShanglan]

When its ideals are good, it's very very good, and when they are bad, it is horrid.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Honour to me, is an abstract concept. It works best when there aren't too many other people's honour for yours to knock up against-- lots of space around territories. When we crowd together, honour, like body odour, becomes something of a community liability.

Okay, that is enough from me- I hardly know what I'm saying anymore!

Good night, all...

 

[BlackShanglan]

Honour to me, is an abstract concept. It works best when there aren't too many other people's honour for yours to knock up against-- lots of space around territories. When we crowd together, honour, like body odour, becomes something of a community liability.

Okay, that is enough from me- I hardly know what I'm saying anymore!

Good night, all...

Actually, I love it. Seems to be the plot of a lot of the earlier plays - too many egos in too small a space, like trying to cram three women in hoop skirts into a phone box.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Actually, I love it. Seems to be the plot of a lot of the earlier plays - too many egos in too small a space, like trying to cram three women in hoop skirts into a phone box.

Nice anachronism there!
If we remove the hoops skirts first... We could get four women in the phone box!

 

[rengadeirishman]

good answers, although i may not always agree, valid points were made.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

I'm sorry, but HONOR is something the military dreamed up to justfy sending eighteen year olds out to be killed. It's also interesting how honor fades as a military officer raises in the ranks to the point where he's no where near the shooting.

 

[WRJames]

I'm sorry, but HONOR is something the military dreamed up to justfy sending eighteen year olds out to be killed. It's also interesting how honor fades as a military officer raises in the ranks to the point where he's no where near the shooting.

Good point -- when people start talking honor, duty, etc. they often are up to no good. Pride is another one of those very slippery things that goes bad pretty quickly.

Of course, personal integrity is a good thing. But, in the old days, "gentlemen" used to get very prickly if their "honor" was besmirched -- fight duels and the like. There's a little too much shining the outside of the pot, for my taste.

 

[BlackShanglan]

There's a little too much shining the outside of the pot, for my taste.

Ooh, that's a lovely phrase.

I've also always liked "The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted the spoons." There's a certain sort like that, indeed.

 

[rengadeirishman]

Good point -- when people start talking honor, duty, etc. they often are up to no good. Pride is another one of those very slippery things that goes bad pretty quickly.

Of course, personal integrity is a good thing. But, in the old days, "gentlemen" used to get very prickly if their "honor" was besmirched -- fight duels and the like. There's a little too much shining the outside of the pot, for my taste.

I speak heavily of duty and HONOUR, but i am no military officer, or a highborn noblemen. I tried to enlist, but they decided i was unfit for duty.

I wish i could fight a duel, the world would be a much simpler place if disputes could be handled one on one to first blood drawn from the torso.

The celtic method of battle was very much wrapped in honour and suchlike, it was far more efficient. The heroes and chieftains would challenge each other to duels, and winner took all. Saved alot of lives that way.

 

[TE999]

Honorable,adj Afflicted with an impediment in ones reach. In legislative bodies it is customary to mention all members as honorable; as, "the honorable gentleman is a scurvy cur."

'The Devil's Dictionary' Ambrose Bierce

Sort of cheapens the concept a bit taken in this context.

 

[Liar]

I wish i could fight a duel, the world would be a much simpler place if disputes could be handled one on one to first blood drawn from the torso.

Why not over a game of Yahzee?

If disputes can't be settled over something even more civil and peaceful, why would they be settled at first blood?

 

[Liar]

Everty person has three identities.

-The person you experience that you are (internal ID)
-The person you want others to experience that you are (projected ID)
-The person other people experience that you are. (external ID)

As long as the concept of honor is assicoated with the first, or the last, I think it's ok. If it's more associated with the middle one, it can be downright dangerous.

 

[gauchecritic]

I just knew blood would come in somewhere when talking about honour.

It seems to me that the most difficult thing about honour is that it is completely individual and therefore a source of conflict. Honour always needs to be upheld and in doing so is in direct conflict with loving your enemy and turning the other cheek.

All too often this evolves into do unto them before they do unto you.

Defending your honour is very much like the phrase "Are you looking at me?"

When the police arrest you due to mistaken identity do you challenge the 'sheriff' to a duel?

If the postman 'accidentally' delivers your overdraft statement next door do you demand satisfaction on the field?

If the government compulsorily purchases your property to build a six lane highway do you march to the whitehouse glove in hand?

Not hardly. But all too often honour is challenged because someone called someone else a motherfucker or someone hit on someone's girlfriend or someone spread gossip.

Honour is a global thing in terms of self esteem. Either everything matters or nothing does and proving your honour lasts about as long as you don't get caught.

The bank mistakenly puts you in the red in your account. Your 'honour' is satisfied when they admit their mistake and offer some slight compensation. But you take a taxi up town, get chatting with the driver and get out without paying. Do you track him down and give him the money you owe? It's the honourable thing to do.

Honour, like freedom of speech, carries large obligations on the part of the honourable and free.

 

[Recidiva]

Honor is like a shiny breastplate. It takes a bit of polish, it helps impress people, you have to stand in the light to get the biggest effect.

It is useful for me because I'm a talented liar and cheat. Very much so. I was born that way. I was just good at it. I'm still good at it.

Honor was my way out of that pit. I did ultimately work out that every time I lied or cheated, it was because I didn't think I could accomplish a goal honestly, or because I was too lazy to accomplish it. Despite being good at lying, it was making me weaker, not stronger, in my opinion, and I wanted to be strong.

I chose to become stronger, to choose to accomplish things the hard way. Not just for the "honor" of doing it, but because lying and cheating separated me from other people. I saw them as stupid, foolish, and I saw myself as manipulative and evil. That dichotomy was awful and I didn't want to stay there.

I resolved to tell the truth. I resolved to pay my own way. I stand by these tenets. However, I will also tell you, that if I get into a situation where I know I can't honestly accomplish my goals, but my goal is a good one, I will likely lie cheat and steal.

Steal a loaf of bread because my kids are starving? Hell yeah.

Lie to you because you're about to so something that will get you killed? Yeah.

Honor for me has gone out the window in moments of crisis, but I can say I've saved two lives from being a skillful liar and manipulating a situation.

If you choose to know me, you will have to have faith in my honor to a certain extent. When lives are threatened, all bets are off. I will fight dirty. I will lie, I will cheat. I have a clear boundary determined by practical applications. I will do all things honestly until I can't. I will not lie to get a pack of gum. I will lie if lives are at stake.

I do not always tell the truth. I do not always do everything honestly. My honor, however, will compel me to tell you this up front if you're going to be around me a lot. Admitting I will lie or cheat in extremes is part of my honor and self knowledge.

I believe not telling people this up front would be cheating. In those situations, I behave on instinct, and often the instinct is that the end justifies the means.

I don't use this to threaten anyone's lives, but I will use it if I'm being threatened.

So this is working out now to odds of one whopping lie every ten years or so to save a life. I'll take those odds.

 

[oggbashan]

Honour can kill.

Honour killings happen in the UK and parts of the Indian sub-continent because a family's "honour" is seen to be stained by a daughter rejecting a husband selected for her, by seeking to divorce an abusive husband, or choosing a husband for herself that her family consider unsuitable.

Honour justifies female genital mutilation.

Honour justifies treating women as second-class citizens that have to be protected from any contact with unrelated males.

Honour justifies juvenile gang members attacking and even killing members of other gangs for perceived trespass on their territory or "disrespect".

Honour has been perverted from its original meaning to an excuse for violence.

"Dulce et Decorum est pro Patria Mori" was never true. Dying for one's country is painful and ultimately futile. Killing the other man who is fighting for HIS country is the aim.

People can and do behave honourably but the word "honour" has been stained beyond redemption.

Og

 

[Recidiva]

I speak heavily of duty and HONOUR, but i am no military officer, or a highborn noblemen. I tried to enlist, but they decided i was unfit for duty.

I wish i could fight a duel, the world would be a much simpler place if disputes could be handled one on one to first blood drawn from the torso.

The celtic method of battle was very much wrapped in honour and suchlike, it was far more efficient. The heroes and chieftains would challenge each other to duels, and winner took all. Saved alot of lives that way.

Yes, but the issues at hand would always be about what the chieftains wanted, not what the people affected by the win or loss wanted.

Again, this goes a bit back yesterday to my experience of being a woman.

If chieftains are in fact killing each other over the right to a woman or to land, the people on the land or the woman really are the ones that should have the say.

It's fine if you're only dealing with personal issues, when you extend your honor and judgment to stand for others in combat, might does not equal right.

I believe in diplomacy much more than I believe in the might of honor or the sword.

As much as I respect the ability to fight, I think that social models that reflect "What I say goes because I can beat you up" are inherently flawed to the extent that those who are most willing to cheat but look the best to the audience, win. Taken one step further, the audience is ignored, because the might is so great...who cares?