Honour: is the concept that bad?

[Die Neue Zeit]

On a philosophical level, what is honour, exactly? Is it that bad a concept as Marx said, or is it tied to human "dignity"? I mean, on a purely economic level, isn't exploitation dishonourable in a way?

[Marukusu]

"Honour" is - like religion - an unnatural concept created by humans to justify certain actions and to make other actions look bad. No-one is born honourable or immoral, animals doesn't have any moral concepts like "honour" that we humans have. "Honour" can also mean different things in different cultures and societies - and even different things to different individuals - which is another evidence of the hypocrisy of morals.

I'm not saying that we all should walk around and be badasses just because morals doesn't exist, we should still respect each other as equals and use common sense in our actions.

[Dimentio]

Well, I think you would prefer to live in a society where you can be sure no one steals your candy, no one throws dirt at you at random, and you do not need to go around armed because someone wants to put a knife in you.

[Marukusu]

Originally posted by Serpent
Well, I think you would prefer to live in a society where you can be sure no one steals your candy, no one throws dirt at you at random, and you do not need to go around armed because someone wants to put a knife in you.

Of course. But you don't have to be honourable to be a good citizen.
I'm not saying that I don't have any ideals I strive for (we all have), I'm just critizising the traditional concepts of moral and honour.

[Dimentio]

That depends on what you mean by honour.

Let us take some examples.

Jimmy, 33, a famous swimmer and sportsman, is walking on the edge of the pool. He sees Jacqueline, 5, who is struggling for her life in the water. He does not interfere, but just pass by.

Ronald, 68, is lying on the street with a broken knee and no money. The hospital refuse to pick him up because he already owes them 200.000$ for a kidney operation. No one is offering him help because it "ain't their bizniz".

Victor, 25, is haunted by a gang in New York. He knocks on the door at his cousin Vince's apartment, but Vince refuses to open since Victor owes him some cash.

Imagine a society without any concept of honour. Would it be somewhat good to live in?

[Pawn Power]

For any grounded discussion to happen you need to state what definition of honor you would like to talk about because, to be sure, honor has various meanings depending on the particular society and culture.

[StartToday]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 09:44 am
That depends on what you mean by honour.

Let us take some examples.

...

Imagine a society without any concept of honour. Would it be somewhat good to live in?
I would consider those decisions to be based on personal morals. When I help somebody, I do it because I don't want them to suffer, or go without, or whatever. I don't care if anybody else knows about it and "honors" me. I do it because of my own personal morals.

[Dimentio]

Honour and morals is intertwingled. It is not about anyone else recognising you.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 03:44 pm
That depends on what you mean by honour.

Let us take some examples.

Jimmy, 33, a famous swimmer and sportsman, is walking on the edge of the pool. He sees Jacqueline, 5, who is struggling for her life in the water. He does not interfere, but just pass by.

Ronald, 68, is lying on the street with a broken knee and no money. The hospital refuse to pick him up because he already owes them 200.000$ for a kidney operation. No one is offering him help because it "ain't their bizniz".

Victor, 25, is haunted by a gang in New York. He knocks on the door at his cousin Vince's apartment, but Vince refuses to open since Victor owes him some cash.

Imagine a society without any concept of honour. Would it be somewhat good to live in?
It is more a question of straight morality than specifically honour that is called into question by these examples...even then the results happen in contemporary society; not because of a lack of "honour" or somethingorother "morality," but rather because the class system, as it exists, necessitates selfish self presevatory behaviour.

Cowardice, or an unwillingness to take personal risks for no personal gain is suported in a system that states that it is just to allow ourselves to follow our most selfish desires because we are being guided by an "invisible hand."

Sort out the socio-economic factors and there is no reason why every case you have suggested could not be a non-issue. Neglect these factors, and instead spend your time spreading messages of honour and morality and you will find yourself up shit creek without a paddle.

There are plenty of reasonable Marxist sollutions, at least for the examples posted, that deal with the issue in a manner that a spreading of morality cannot. The problem with "honour" or indeed "morality" is that you have to derive them from somewhere...the question here is where. The second problem is that (at least in my understanding of the term), this usually implies that they are absolute, if not absolute and sacred.

The problem here is that when a particular social trend becomes counter productive or destructive, the combination of the conservative nature of such beliefs and the force of tradition combine to make the removal of a concept from its ingrained state very difficult.

We can make decisions that benifit society without morality; indeed without conflicting absolutes on trivial (or not so trivial) social matters we would likely enjoy a much more harmonious state of existence.

Amorality means backing up decisions with a reasoning rather than an appeal to custom. This is a more favourable situation considering the ideological imperitive to generate change; as a Marxist that is. It is also a much more adaptable approach towards proper conduct towards one anaother; doing what works rather than what we traditionally do.

As for incentives to perform "good" actions without morality....well this will depend upon your stance, but I am not alone in realising the potential for mutual gain in this respect; as autonomous individuals we should already be used to conducting ourselves more according to this end than to that of the law, peer pressure, religious pressure or any other external influence.

[gilhyle]

The idea of honour seems to me very like the concept of 'respect'.

The idea of honour seems to involve the view others have of me - my honour is how I am seen. But this includes how I view myself - a concept which considers me as an observer of myself, not an unreasonable idea.

For this reason I see the idea of honour as part of a social idea of morals inwhich morals are determined by a relationship to observers who judge the action.

While the idea of me as he observer of myself confuses the matter, it should not be allowed to obfuscate the basic idea.

If we look at Bacon's essay on honour and reputation, we see a key change being marked. Bacon recommends not seeking out honour, not trying to appear meritorious. He recommends doing things because you think they are right and putting success in life down to providence.

This approach differed very strongly from the medieval view among the aristocracy where the pursuit of honour was seen as a legitimate project.

As a loose general rule, dominant classes in stable power tend to develop concepts of honour - in other words the standards of right behaviour seem certain and the challenge for the individual is to particpate fully. But in capitalism, what replaces honour is simply wealth. Wealth is the sign of honour in a society where success is supposedly a reflection of character.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ How can wealth be a sign of honour for corporate crooks? :huh: Prestige is a helluva lot different from honour.

My personal definition of it is basically along the lines of this in peacetime: if you're in a deal and the other party has scratched your back, make sure YOU make an effort to scratch the other guy's back. Backstabbing is a no-no, unless there are certain political issues involved.

Honour, at least for me, is NOT about expecting my back to be scratched EVERY single f****** time. Yes, if somebody decides to actively harm me or my reputation after I've helped him out, his treacherous act marks him as my victim and signals to me to "plan minutely, slack an implacable vengeance, and then go to bed" - but if I lend somebody a dollar for the grocery carts??? Come on!

When in conflict, of course, discern between the combatants and the civilians.


[b]Jimmy, 33, a famous swimmer and sportsman, is walking on the edge of the pool. He sees Jacqueline, 5, who is struggling for her life in the water. He does not interfere, but just pass by.

Ronald, 68, is lying on the street with a broken knee and no money. The hospital refuse to pick him up because he already owes them 200.000$ for a kidney operation. No one is offering him help because it "ain't their bizniz".

Victor, 25, is haunted by a gang in New York. He knocks on the door at his cousin Vince's apartment, but Vince refuses to open since Victor owes him some cash.


The problem is that I don't see ANY form of honour on the part of the offending parties being blemished:

1) What the hell is Jimmy doing? Where is the slightest blemish upon his honour by going out there to save a life?
2) Good Samaritan case; I don't see any "backstabbing" issues here.
3) Vince is just a plain SOB.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

The idea of honour killings and duels is troublesome to me. So are honour suicides. In fact I have severe trouble even seeing the connection between honour and morals aside from the fact that both can be twisted to fit the current times and whims of those who make them.

[Zumerius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 10:58 pm
On a philosophical level, what is honour, exactly? Is it that bad a concept as Marx said, or is it tied to human "dignity"? I mean, on a purely economic level, isn't exploitation dishonourable in a way?
Well, to really have a good discussion on this topic (which I think is a good one), could you please provide a quote of precisely the concept that Marx is saying is bad? Better yet, provide the context in which he is saying it as well.

Without any specific perspective, such as this, to analyze the concept, we are really left treating "honour" like any other abstract concept--a descriptive term, the content of which will be largely determined by perspective (i.e. culture, class, personal philosophy, etc.).

And, like all abstract concepts, it will be inclined to be used as a categorical form with a fetishistic power of its own, by those seeking to use it as a tool against its, seemingly, categorical opposite.

[Dimentio]

Actually, I do not understand what has happened with duels... They were usual back in the 1820;s.

Anyway, I would not have anything against it if we had some concept of general values independent from the specific consumerist cliché of today. That do of course not involve honour killings or duels.

[Zumerius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 07:17 am
Anyway, I would not have anything against it if we had some concept of general values independent from the specific consumerist cliché of today. That do of course not involve honour killings or duels.
There is only one value that I will categorically support: Life (as defined as "the constant and prolific struggle against entropy").

Other than that, I am against any value being pressed categorically--that is, as good-in-itself-at-all-times.

Nor am I for relativism-in-principle. At every specific moment, within each specific perspective, I believe that there is an objective rightness or wrongness, whose objectivity is determined by the aforementioned value of "Life".

[Dimentio]

There we could agree.

[gilhyle]

Let me try again: for the bourgeoisie wealth is the equivalent of honour. Why ? because what you are is how you are seen and for them, wealth leads to receiving positive feedback from the world (and believe me it does: the wealthy are surrounding by fawning praise and deference, if they can bear it). That is why I say for them that honour is reduced to a concept of wealth and success - its a pale shadow of the concepts of honour that existed in earlier societies when ruling classes were strongly entrenched.

Today, you still see more substantive concepts like honour in some circles. For a gang member willing to fight someone who bumps into him on the street to 'gain respect', the purpose of the fight is to reinforce how he is seen by his colleagues. His standing - his honour - is at stake.

You still see concepts of honour in armies - the idea of a dishonourable discharge still reflects that. If you enter into the spirit of participation in the army this kind of idea can make a lot of sense to you. But if that is the case, it is because you will it so, it is not imposed on you.

If you watch Stanley Kubrick's film Barry Lyndon (based on an 18th century book), the absurdity of fighting and maybe dying because you could not walk away from your duty to fight (because it would be seen as dishonourable) is highlighted.

In our society since the 16th century, the concept of honour has been problematic. We are much more comfortable with an individualistic ethics which values personal authenticity and integrity rather than honour. Honour is not part of an individualistic ethical stance; rather it is part of a communal ethical stance. [For that reason one might expect something like honour to re-emerge in a socialist society.]

The examples you give of a man beside the pool etc. are not really about honour...they are about personal integrity. It is true that some of the examples also concern an issue of standing up for yourself, as in not helping someone because he owes you an unpaid debt. Thus they are about self-respect.

Once you introduce the idea of self-respect, this is where it becomes complicated. If I talk of honour and respect in the eyes of others, I can draw a clear line between this and integrity and authenticity, the latter being values characteristic of individualistic value systems and the former more characteristic of communal value systems.

When I introduce the idea of SELF respect as a variation on respect, then it all becomes conceptually confused. The issue involves concepts of me as an observer of myself - of me as my own community. This gets us into more complex moral ideas, ideas like that I dont exists as a single homogenous individual, but rather that I exist as a set of connected behaviour patterns, acting differently in different environments. For example, when I am involved in politics I dont act the same way I do at home with my parents. A value I would hold to in one situation, I dont necessarily hold to in the other.

Once you start to break the individual down like that, then concepts of honour and respect can reemerge even within a society like ours which is dominated by individualistic values. The old question: 'how can you live with yourself ?' encapsulates this experience.

Another way in which honour reemerges in our society is in the clash of cultures over images of the islamic prophet. In certain circumstances, these have been taken to 'dishonour' muslims. One way to look at what is happening here (granted a non political way) is that a clash of normative meta-standards (i.e. a clash between different ways of finding values) is the way in which migration into Europe creates political conflict. For the traditional liberal indiividualist ethical approach there is no drawing/cartoon I can draw that can harm you. On a communalist view, it can dishonour you.

So is honour a good thing or not in this society ? I think the original insight of Bacon is correct. Honour is not ot be trusted in a world where your personal morals are a private matter.

Honour is now a false friend, a ruthless task master and - when cieted to others - an irrational instrument of moral bullying. Pity, it would be nice to live in a world where honour was a trustworthy standard.

That said, I would be slow to judge an issue like cartoon images of the islamic prophet by reference to a general conclusion on the value of honour.

[Zumerius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 02:21 am
So is honour a good thing or not in this society ? I think the original insight of Bacon is correct. Honour is not ot be trusted in a world where your personal morals are a private matter.
As you have so clearly shown, the concept of "honour" changes over time. What a person, or culture, describes as being honourable will change according to, like you said, meta-standards. Even when you analyze behaviors to show they were a matter of integrity, authenticity [to self], etc., the concept of "honour" still exists, for then it is considered honorable for a person to possess authenticity, integrity, etc.

So long as people think normatively, that there is a way things "should" be, then there is going to exist a concept of honour, for "possessing honour" is merely an expression that that person's character manifests the qualities that one's social group values. In bougeois society, capital is fetishized, ergo a man of great wealth is an honorable man. In gang culture, respect is fetishized, ergo a man who enforces respect of his personal standards is an honorable man.

The question seems to me, not whether we should retain a concept of honour (for how could we as normative beings not?), but how seriously we should take ourselves.

For a people who value doubt, skepticism, and social tranquility, the more an individual takes himself seriously, the more those people are going to appauled by his seriousness. It will often mean that he posits himself, boldly, as a final arbiter, without doubt or skepticism and without care to the effects on social tranquility. It's not his ideas as to 'what is honorable' that ennerve them; it is the depths to which his will defend those ideas. How could a person be so sure of themselves? How could they have such confidence in themselves, in their "personal morals", without consulting society [at large]? To a culture of empiricism and skepticism, it would NOT be honorable to take oneself so seriously, for we are to be skeptical even of ourselves.

Yes, people who take themselves very seriously are ruthless in their manifestation of themselves (of their goals, of their values, of their characters).

So really, I think what you are asking is... Is the ruthless pursuit of one's highest values a good thing in our society or not?

And, I guess that depends on what kind of society you want to live in. Personally, I'd rather have a slightly more changeable and ascetic existence that maintains a vigorous freedom and conflict of values, than a more stabile and tranquil existence supported by people not taking themselves seriously enough to cause any kind of a disturbance. Really, this is not something that you can choose or not choose. The conflict of values is going to exist, even if those values are narrowed down because economic disparity (and the difference in values that stem from it) has been widdled away. Placing social constraints on how those conflicts can be played out (i.e. how ruthlessly) merely prolongs the process.

[Hegemonicretribution]

You define honour as being dependent in each case of the society/social group that make up its properties. I don't think this is a poor conception of the term, if anything it demonstrates the impossibility of objectively honourable actions.

However we can (as normative beings) dispense with "honour." Relativism in purest application would result in this, post-modernism....lots of approaches.When there is no set of social values that are accepted in order to allow honour we have no honour; you may still call the state whereby we live free from a rigid(ish) social code honour as well...but this is rather begging the question.

When we stop looking at actions as being good or bad in or of themselves, and purely in terms of their application and merit (not in preserving the status quo, but in achieving the ends as was intended), then we have moved away from morality and honour....we find our selves in a state of contemplation regarding real issues.

Ruthless pursuit of highest goals is not a problem when the extent to which a goal will be pursued is itself taken into account. The idea that there is a particular right has diminished, and we may now be in a position whereby we can escape a-priori assumptions; whether this is resulting from a rigid social code of conduct, or bad word use and intellectual masturbation.

[Idola Mentis]

Honour in the modern sense seems perverted. What it means in most communities which operate on it, and in practice even to those who don't, is a web of obligations developed between people. Not contracts or morals, but the day-to-day practices, which in sum forms the assumptions everyone operates on. These makes it possible to live together with any degree of comfort at all.

To illustrate; it's said that once upon a time in Japan, you could forget your laptop on a bench in the park, and expect to find it on the lost and found office later. If you did the same in norway, you'd never see it again. Within both the local concepts of honour, the person who found the laptop would have acted honourable - in the latter honour community, if you're stupid enough to leave such a valuable thing around, people will generally agree that you deserved to loose it. While in the former, most people couldn't bear the shame of just take something which someone else might need more than them. The point is not the particular rule followed, but the predictability and security of the outcome of any social event.

Honour, as I know it, is rather central to my understanding of socialism.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by Idola [email protected] 15, 2007 01:44 pm
Honour in the modern sense seems perverted. ......
Honour, as I know it, is rather central to my understanding of socialism.
I think you might be right about this. I read a book years ago about the development of ethical values in the USSR in the first ten years after the revolution - very interesting book about the flowering new standards of mutual obligation. (Unfortunately I didnt keep the title and I have never found it since.)

The argument about ruthlessness I see as diifferent

But the aspect of the matter I was trying to draw attention to is the way reversion to concepts of honour and respect can be used episodically within capitalist society to bully people with irrational arguments - my freedom of speech can be constrained when I supposedly use it to 'disrespect' you : in this way the rightness or wrongness of what I say can be displaced.

This type of argument is very strange within capitalist society but is now quite widespread. I see it as a way of using honour-type concepts to disorientate debate in the service of irrationalism and the coveretly abusive exercise of power and influence. Thus my scepticism about honour -within capitalism