Honor and it's value to you.

Littlekittylou

Honor=integrity to the point to which a man /woman is willing to hold to it.

Today's concept does not really relate to the idea of Homer's honor and what duelists died for.

A few parts of society like the fire brigade or Doctors the army etc have a sense of professional honor. But it's not really clear in the west.

There seems to be a sense classically that honor is in essence true manliness. And even that women are of a different honor or even less honorable.

Anthropologist Frank Henderson Stewart suggests there is vertical honor and horizontal honor.
Horizontal honor is defined as the

“right to respect among an exclusive society of equals.”

Vertical honor, on the other hand, isn’t about mutual respect, but is rather about giving praise and esteem to those “who are superior, whether by virtue of their abilities, their rank.

So, vertical honor = praise, esteem, admiration.

Alexander Welsh makes the case that

for vertical honor to exist, horizontal honor must first be present.

Without a baseline of mutual respect among equal peers (horizontal honor), winning praise and esteem (vertical honor) means very little.

For Shakespeare Honor was also reputation.

Implicit in this bipartite notion of honor is that it depends on the opinion of others. You can have a sense of your own honor, but that isn’t enough — others must recognize your honor for it to exist. Or as anthropologist Julian Pitt-Rivers put it:

“Honour is the value of a person in his own eyes, but also in the eyes of his society. It is his estimation of his own worth, his claim to pride, but it is also the acknowledgment of that claim, his excellence recognized by society, his right to pride.”

Greeks appreciated honor for it's own sake. And it's definitely an attractive quality in a person.Aristotle preferred to speak of “praise and blame” rather than honor and shame.

What is honor ?

KomradeBishop

Honor seems to be about applying your own personal/subjective moral code, to yourself and using it to judge other people, and this moral code seems to change a lot from one person to the other - it's also a great way to control people socially on a large scale, by encouraging the perpetuation of moral codes that are useful to certain people (a bit like how advertisers, try to perpetuate insecurities in people on a wide scale - e.g. you could consider masculine/chivalrous 'honor codes' a part of this - using gender stereotypes and such, to sell products).

I've not thought about the idea of 'honor' before, but I think 'maybe' that honor would come from having the critical thinking skills and intelligence, to be able to seek out the flaws in your own moral values, and to constantly adjust them and to keep on learning more to improve them.

Very very very few people are good at or care about this.


To give an example of how hard this is, the entire topic of economics can be considered as being 'applied morality' - just think of all the moral judgments people make (not saying any of these are wrong - or right - they are just economic moral judgments you see a lot):
"Debts must be paid", "people must work to earn money", "budgets must be balanced", "the unemployed are just lazy", etc.

To understand which moral codes in economics, are the accurate/correct ones, you have to put a lot of effort into learning economics - and moral judgments based on (often flawed) understanding of economics, get used a lot in everyday life, in one way or another - so, it is hard to build a good/'honorable' moral code on those issues, and the vast vast majority of people will side with the simple/wrong answers/moral-codes, even if that means unfairly judging - even punishing severely - some people (very few people care about learning economic issues, despite presenting some of the most important moral issues that exist).

So, being 'honorable' in this area, means investing a lot of time/effort and taking on views that put you in a tiny minority and go against the grain of the vast majority of people - and while being 'honorable' is (idealistically) supposed to garner you respect, taking on minority views like this will often lead to the opposite.
To gain "respect" or "praise, esteem, admiration" in this environment, means discarding your integrity, so that creates a lot of contradictions in the definitions of honor put forward.

Anyway - I'm going on a lot, and this is the first time I've tried to formulate my ideas on what 'honor' is; I'm not sure it's a very useful term, as it seems that the makeup of your moral framework is more important, and that the idea of honor isn't well-defined (or can contradict itself).

Black Swan

Littlekittylou wrote: »

Vertical honor, on the other hand, isn’t about mutual respect, but is rather about giving praise and esteem to those “who are superior, whether by virtue of their abilities, their rank.

Kahlil Gibran may suggest that we exercise caution before offering vertical honor to those "who are superior."

KomradeBishop wrote: »

To gain "respect" or "praise, esteem, admiration" in this environment, means discarding your integrity, so that creates a lot of contradictions in the definitions of honor put forward.

Kahlil Gibran poetically proclaimed the contradictions that may exist in the context and use of such words as honor, suggesting a measure of "greater pirates" elitism in contrast to "small offenders" condemnation when each pursues her/his abhorrent self-interests.

"Yea, death and prison we mete out
To small offenders of the laws,
While honor, wealth, and full respect
On greater pirates we bestow.

To steal a flower we call mean.
To rob a field is chivalry;
Who kills the body he must die,
Who kills the spirit he goes free."

(The Essential Kahlil Gibran, The Philosophical Library, 1966)

In similar fashion the potential for "vertical honor" contradiction in word usage and meaning called to mind two lines from the film Cliffhanger (1993):
"Kill a few people, they call you a murderer. Kill a million and you're a conqueror."

The Corinthian

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Honor seems to be about applying your own personal/subjective moral code, to yourself and using it to judge other people, and this moral code seems to change a lot from one person to the other - it's also a great way to control people socially on a large scale, by encouraging the perpetuation of moral codes that are useful to certain people (a bit like how advertisers, try to perpetuate insecurities in people on a wide scale - e.g. you could consider masculine/chivalrous 'honor codes' a part of this - using gender stereotypes and such, to sell products).

And where do codes of honour such as European Chivalry and Japanese Bushido fit into this personal/subjective framework of yours? Both were pretty codified and did not change from one person to another.

KomradeBishop

The Corinthian wrote: »

And where do codes of honour such as European Chivalry and Japanese Bushido fit into this personal/subjective framework of yours? Both were pretty codified and did not change from one person to another.

The honor systems were well codified, but adopting them as your own personal moral code was just a subjective as e.g. any religious belief is.

The Corinthian

KomradeBishop wrote: »

The honor systems were well codified, but adopting them as your own personal moral code was just a subjective as e.g. any religious belief is.

So codes of honour are not actually personal or subjective, is what you're saying, just how people adopted them?

KomradeBishop

You're the one suggesting codes of honour are not personal/subjective - I'll leave you to explain that; this seems to be nitpicking.

The Corinthian

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You're the one suggesting codes of honour are not personal/subjective - I'll leave you to explain that; this seems to be nitpicking.

No. Just trying to understand what you're trying to say.

You clearly state that "honour (sic) seems to be about applying your own personal/subjective moral code". When it is pointed out that the codification and intended application of such moral codes have historically been anything but subjective, you then clarify that it is not the codes themselves that are subjective, as could be previously implied, but people's application thereof.

Is this your intent?

Torakx

Isn't honour at least partly subjective?
If I recieved a nomination(vertical) for the most ruthless abuse given to strangers by a group of abuse givers, I would not feel honoured.
I would first have to feel I had the horizontal honour of being that type in the first place. Which requires a subjective view of myself right?
Because I think it is subjective as to wether giving abuse is honourable or not.
Maybe someone who believes strong enough in duality would consider it an honour to strengthen others will against abuse. It would require again a subjective view of themselves versus current morals/ethics in the culture they live.

What honour means to me, I think , is to feel pride or be given the feeling of pride in ones actions or standing among others.

Soldiers go about killing innocent people all the time around the world, yet it is to some an honourable pursuit, to take over lands, kill off families and destroy whole societies and cultures. Honour is subjective to me.
You can even win a medal of honour for brave acts of killing and saving fellow killers in war.
Can you say that the honour of an abuse giver is objective?
What about the honour of a soldier who kills people, yet meets all the requirements of his country to be honoured and respected for his acts in war.
I would say culturally subjective.
I am not sure how to objectively look at honour, as the requirements depend on culture, morals and ethics.

Peregrinus

I think we need to distinguish in this conversation between “personal” and “subjective”.

My preference for, say, vanilla ice cream over chocolate ice cream is both personal and subjective. By contrast, if we as a society decide that, say, eating lamb is acceptable but eating puppies is not (and we pass a law which forbids butchers from selling dog-meat for human consumption) that’s a collective preference or judgment, not a personal one, but it’s still subjective.

Honour, it seems to me, can mean two things.

First, it means the respect accorded to me as a person by others who acknowledge and admire my personal qualities. This form of honour depends on what qualities others regard as are admirable. Some societies might honour a person’s sporting ability and achievements, for example, even though the person themselves might not consider that there is anything particularly honourable about them.

But it also means my own sense of commitment to my values. If, for example, I make a point of never telling a lie and of always keeping my word because of the value that I place on truth and on commitment, I may regard myself as a man of honour. It’s not necessary, when honour is used in this sense, that anyone else should regard me as a man of honour. Perhaps they would, if they noticed my dependable and truthful behaviour. Or perhaps they do not assign the same value to these things as I do, instead valuing the ability to get things done, or qualities like courtesy or intelligence or valour. But honour in this sense is found in my adherence to my own values; it is not dependent on others sharing those values.

Both forms of honour are subjective. Or, at least, they depend on subjective assessment of which qualities and characteristics are admirable. But the first is not personal; it’s communal. The second is personal.

The Corinthian

Torakx wrote: »

Isn't honour at least partly subjective?

It's a bit like asking isn't religion at least partially subjective?

One can claim to be a good Muslim, yet commit acts that are haram, are they still pius? If one claims to be honourable, yet commits acts that are considered dishonorable by the commonly recognized (thus not subjective to the individual) honour code, are they still honourable?

Strictly speaking, I suspect that with any system of collective belief - be it religion, morality, ethics or honour - it cannot be subjective to the individual as it would defeat the purpose of that system - that it is collective, shared.

What honour means to me, I think , is to feel pride or be given the feeling of pride in ones actions or standing among others.

TBH, this is the problem with this entire thread. Everyone wants to have their own definition for something which is supposed to be commonly recognized, at least to their own culture.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Both forms of honour are subjective. Or, at least, they depend on subjective assessment of which qualities and characteristics are admirable. But the first is not personal; it’s communal. The second is personal.

Agreed. I suspect there's a fair bit of confusion here between the two.

The_Valeyard

Honour or honor?

The Corinthian

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Honour or honor?

Boards.ie is an Irish site, so it would be honour.

In practice, I suspect it depends on whether people have installed a UK spellchecker to their browser or if they're using the default US one.

The_Valeyard

The Corinthian wrote: »

Boards.ie is an Irish site, so it would be honour.

In practice, I suspect it depends on whether people have installed a UK spellchecker to their browser or if they're using the default US one.

Cheers wasn't sure if people were using the US spelling as to infer a different meaning to the word.

Manach

Addressing the OP's question, honour is a matter of both societal and personal disposition. In the latter, as part of a course, I read how the concept of honour was a centre tenet in classic civilisations. This regulated how was to behave in interactions between classes and foreigners. A famed story on how to behave where the captured Roman senators who having been captured where released on parole to discuss peace terms. They argued to the best of their ability against the terms and afterwards returned to their execution in the enemy camp.
A slightly different version is that of the Christian infused version of honour that had its apex in Medieval times. There the Spanish saying ,"Life and gold we owe to the King, but Honour alone to God" showed a more individual emphasis (a type of equity) on being obliged to secular authorities but ultimately having pursue the right course of action as honour intended.