Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Laurentius · 06-10-2002, 01:18 PM

AVE

The other day it occurred to me that in general people no longer care about honor.

I remember that in the ancient era there were times when having a good reputation meant something. In the Middle Ages as well.

How about today? Does honor still represent a social value?

Nowadays commercialism forces business people to convey the impression of being men/women of honor, but I’m not talking about that.

Does honor matter in one’s private life any more? No so much, I think. Or am I wrong?

AVE

echidna · 06-11-2002, 12:16 AM

Bear in mind that this realisation may also just be a function of growing older, but I agree to an extent.

The legacy of Post Modernism & the growth of moral subjectivity seems to have left us with a degree of cultural relativism, a lack of common values. Whenever one begins to talk about good and bad, even in the sense of our common (universal ?) morality, someone will always chime in �well, that�s just your opinion you know�. So to an extent it�s inevitable that some standards will decline as they are seen as �old-fashioned�.

Personally I cling to the human virtues & claim them as universals, maybe even objectively good under circumstances : integrity, altruism, compassion.

Hmmm, I�ve not answered your question. What is your definition of honour ?

bonduca · 06-11-2002, 07:57 AM

In the Middle Ages, there was much talk about chivarly and honor, but apparently about as much follow-through as today. Also, the concept of chivalry was not universal. It was perfectly acceptable to lop the arms off a peasant, or ravish his daughter. Etc. etc.

Our own history is full of white guys who talked about reputation and honor, but supported the military's treatment of Native Americans, and the virtual enslavement of Chinese immigrants by the railroad associations. And Southern tradition embraced the concept of honor and chivalry, yet supported slavery.

Cheer up. People often suck, but we can transcend our basic suckiness with suprising frequency.

[ June 11, 2002: Message edited by: bonduca ]</p>

06-11-2002, 08:13 AM

Honour in 18th-century polite society meant a reputation of chastity for a woman and for a man a readiness to fight (to the death if necessary) any man who insulted one. I don't think we would be impressed by such an interpretation of honour in our century.

Koyaanisqatsi · 06-11-2002, 08:47 AM

I think there's a significant difference between honor and integrity.

Honor always struck me as a malleable and largely hypocritical piousness that was used as a means to indoctrinate/manipulate gullible people into doing stupid things (aka, war).

Integrity, on the other hand, seems more of a personal, immutable quality; a means to weigh the self against a more idealized version of the self for the betterment of the self; a "person stands alone and puts him or herself to the test" kind of thing.

My two cents.

Laurentius · 06-11-2002, 01:45 PM

AVE

echidna

I hope it's okay with you if I kind of turn this into a dialogue, you know, for the sake of expressiveness:

<LAURENTIUS> Does honor matter in one’s private life any more? No so much, I think. Or am I wrong?

<ECHIDNA> Bear in mind that this realisation may also just be a function of growing older.

<LAURENTIUS> Okay...

<ECHIDNA> But I agree to an extent.

<LAURENTIUS> Okay. I mean, it is quite obvious that honor does not really represent a real preoccupation nowadays.

<ECHIDNA> The legacy of Post Modernism & the growth of moral subjectivity seems to have left us with a degree of cultural relativism, a lack of common values.

<LAURENTIUS> I find this observation true too, but I would expect small, naturally-formed communities to hold a set of minimum rules whose observance could grant one a good reputation.

<ECHIDNA> Whenever one begins to talk about good and bad, even in the sense of our common (universal ?) morality, someone will always chime in “well, that’s just your opinion you know”.

<LAURENTIUS> I used to hate that. Later I noticed, however, that most people who get moralistic often do so in order to run their enemies' qualities down or/and conceal their own flaws.

<ECHIDNA> So to an extent it’s inevitable that some standards will decline as they are seen as “old-fashioned”.

<LAURENTIUS> Couldn't agree more, but the issue is not the distortion of the moral standards according to which one could be considered a man of honor; the issue is the collapse of any standard and the indifference about lacking a good reputation.

<ECHIDNA> Personally I cling to the human virtues & claim them as universals, maybe even objectively good under circumstances : integrity, altruism, compassion.

<LAURENTIUS> This should assert you as a person of honor among humanists.

<ECHIDNA> Hmmm, I’ve not answered your question.

<LAURENTIUS> Yeah, not straightforward, no.

<ECHIDNA> What is your definition of honour ?

<LAURENTIUS> I don't think I have a good definition at hand right now, but I think a good reputation is the corallary of the permanent and uunconditioned observance of the basic norms of the community one belongs to. Only that, no matter how small the community is, it seems that few still care about having a good reputation.

AVE

tronvillain · 06-11-2002, 02:21 PM

We live in a society where virtually everyone you meet is a stranger, and where almost no one will hear about your conduct. What incentive is there for civility or honour then? None. If reputation does not generally matter, attempting to foster a good reputation is generally pointless.

In smaller communities (neighborhoods, businesses, families, friends, etc.) "honour" will probably always be important, though the form it takes may change. Of course, even with strangers honour may be a good idea, since there may be direct or future reciprocation, links to your networks, or potential future members of your networks.

[ June 11, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]</p>

Laurentius · 06-11-2002, 02:31 PM

AVE

bonduca

<BONDUCA> In the Middle Ages, there was much talk about chivarly and honor, but apparently about as much follow-through as today.

<LAURENTIUS> Really?

<BONDUCA> Also, the concept of chivalry was not universal.

<LAURENTIUS> Well, I said that "there were times when having a good reputation meant something", not that honor was pervasively sought throughout those eras.

<BONDUCA> It was perfectly acceptable to lop the arms off a peasant, or ravish his daughter. Etc. etc.

<LAURENTIUS> Yes, because honor was applicable only among the members of the same community.
It is a human trait to treat members of other groups as less-than-humans or not-humans-at-all.

<BONDUCA> Our own history is full of white guys who talked about reputation and honor, but supported the military's treatment of Native Americans, and the virtual enslavement of Chinese immigrants by the railroad associations. And Southern tradition embraced the concept of honor and chivalry, yet supported slavery.

<LAURENTIUS> Yeah, humanity is such a frail veil...

<BONDUCA> Cheer up. People often suck, but we can transcend our basic suckiness with suprising frequency.

<LAURENTIUS> I would cheer up (well, in the long run I will certainly), but there's this neighbor of mine to whom I just don't know whether I should say "hello' any more or not.

AVE

Laurentius · 06-11-2002, 02:55 PM

AVE

DMB

<DMB> Honour in 18th-century polite society meant a reputation of chastity for a woman...

<LAURENTIUS> In some parts of the world it still does.

<DMB> ...and for a man a readiness to fight (to the death if necessary) any man who insulted one.

<LAURENTIUS> But it became illegal as the central authority gained more power

<DMB> I don't think we would be impressed by such an interpretation of honour in our century.

<LAURENTIUS> Of course, we wouldn't. Yet, what could we become impressed by?

AVE

Laurentius · 06-11-2002, 03:14 PM

Koyaanisqatsi and tronvillain

Yeah, integrity makes more sense nowadays.

And it works with small communities and strangers due to the more palpable incentives.

Still, I look around and I find it hard to identify a man of honor/integrity.

AVE

06-10-2002, 01:18 PM	#1
Laurentius Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Lucky Bucky, Oz Posts: 5,645	Question of honor AVE The other day it occurred to me that in general people no longer care about honor. I remember that in the ancient era there were times when having a good reputation meant something. In the Middle Ages as well. How about today? Does honor still represent a social value? Nowadays commercialism forces business people to convey the impression of being men/women of honor, but I’m not talking about that. Does honor matter in one’s private life any more? No so much, I think. Or am I wrong? AVE

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-11-2002, 12:16 AM	#2
echidna Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 2,832	Bear in mind that this realisation may also just be a function of growing older, but I agree to an extent. The legacy of Post Modernism & the growth of moral subjectivity seems to have left us with a degree of cultural relativism, a lack of common values. Whenever one begins to talk about good and bad, even in the sense of our common (universal ?) morality, someone will always chime in �well, that�s just your opinion you know�. So to an extent it�s inevitable that some standards will decline as they are seen as �old-fashioned�. Personally I cling to the human virtues & claim them as universals, maybe even objectively good under circumstances : integrity, altruism, compassion. Hmmm, I�ve not answered your question. What is your definition of honour ?

06-11-2002, 07:57 AM	#3
bonduca Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: . Posts: 1,653	In the Middle Ages, there was much talk about chivarly and honor, but apparently about as much follow-through as today. Also, the concept of chivalry was not universal. It was perfectly acceptable to lop the arms off a peasant, or ravish his daughter. Etc. etc. Our own history is full of white guys who talked about reputation and honor, but supported the military's treatment of Native Americans, and the virtual enslavement of Chinese immigrants by the railroad associations. And Southern tradition embraced the concept of honor and chivalry, yet supported slavery. Cheer up. People often suck, but we can transcend our basic suckiness with suprising frequency. [ June 11, 2002: Message edited by: bonduca ]</p>

06-11-2002, 08:13 AM	#4
DMB Guest Posts: n/a	Honour in 18th-century polite society meant a reputation of chastity for a woman and for a man a readiness to fight (to the death if necessary) any man who insulted one. I don't think we would be impressed by such an interpretation of honour in our century.

06-11-2002, 08:47 AM	#5
Koyaanisqatsi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Yes, I have dyslexia. Sue me. Posts: 6,508	I think there's a significant difference between honor and integrity. Honor always struck me as a malleable and largely hypocritical piousness that was used as a means to indoctrinate/manipulate gullible people into doing stupid things (aka, war). Integrity, on the other hand, seems more of a personal, immutable quality; a means to weigh the self against a more idealized version of the self for the betterment of the self; a "person stands alone and puts him or herself to the test" kind of thing. My two cents.

06-11-2002, 01:45 PM	#6
Laurentius Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Lucky Bucky, Oz Posts: 5,645	AVE echidna I hope it's okay with you if I kind of turn this into a dialogue, you know, for the sake of expressiveness: <LAURENTIUS> Does honor matter in one’s private life any more? No so much, I think. Or am I wrong? <ECHIDNA> Bear in mind that this realisation may also just be a function of growing older. <LAURENTIUS> Okay... <ECHIDNA> But I agree to an extent. <LAURENTIUS> Okay. I mean, it is quite obvious that honor does not really represent a real preoccupation nowadays. <ECHIDNA> The legacy of Post Modernism & the growth of moral subjectivity seems to have left us with a degree of cultural relativism, a lack of common values. <LAURENTIUS> I find this observation true too, but I would expect small, naturally-formed communities to hold a set of minimum rules whose observance could grant one a good reputation. <ECHIDNA> Whenever one begins to talk about good and bad, even in the sense of our common (universal ?) morality, someone will always chime in “well, that’s just your opinion you know”. <LAURENTIUS> I used to hate that. Later I noticed, however, that most people who get moralistic often do so in order to run their enemies' qualities down or/and conceal their own flaws. <ECHIDNA> So to an extent it’s inevitable that some standards will decline as they are seen as “old-fashioned”. <LAURENTIUS> Couldn't agree more, but the issue is not the distortion of the moral standards according to which one could be considered a man of honor; the issue is the collapse of any standard and the indifference about lacking a good reputation. <ECHIDNA> Personally I cling to the human virtues & claim them as universals, maybe even objectively good under circumstances : integrity, altruism, compassion. <LAURENTIUS> This should assert you as a person of honor among humanists. <ECHIDNA> Hmmm, I’ve not answered your question. <LAURENTIUS> Yeah, not straightforward, no. <ECHIDNA> What is your definition of honour ? <LAURENTIUS> I don't think I have a good definition at hand right now, but I think a good reputation is the corallary of the permanent and uunconditioned observance of the basic norms of the community one belongs to. Only that, no matter how small the community is, it seems that few still care about having a good reputation. AVE

06-11-2002, 02:21 PM	#7
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	We live in a society where virtually everyone you meet is a stranger, and where almost no one will hear about your conduct. What incentive is there for civility or honour then? None. If reputation does not generally matter, attempting to foster a good reputation is generally pointless. In smaller communities (neighborhoods, businesses, families, friends, etc.) "honour" will probably always be important, though the form it takes may change. Of course, even with strangers honour may be a good idea, since there may be direct or future reciprocation, links to your networks, or potential future members of your networks. [ June 11, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]</p>

06-11-2002, 02:31 PM	#8
Laurentius Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Lucky Bucky, Oz Posts: 5,645	AVE bonduca <BONDUCA> In the Middle Ages, there was much talk about chivarly and honor, but apparently about as much follow-through as today. <LAURENTIUS> Really? <BONDUCA> Also, the concept of chivalry was not universal. <LAURENTIUS> Well, I said that "there were times when having a good reputation meant something", not that honor was pervasively sought throughout those eras. <BONDUCA> It was perfectly acceptable to lop the arms off a peasant, or ravish his daughter. Etc. etc. <LAURENTIUS> Yes, because honor was applicable only among the members of the same community. It is a human trait to treat members of other groups as less-than-humans or not-humans-at-all. <BONDUCA> Our own history is full of white guys who talked about reputation and honor, but supported the military's treatment of Native Americans, and the virtual enslavement of Chinese immigrants by the railroad associations. And Southern tradition embraced the concept of honor and chivalry, yet supported slavery. <LAURENTIUS> Yeah, humanity is such a frail veil... <BONDUCA> Cheer up. People often suck, but we can transcend our basic suckiness with suprising frequency. <LAURENTIUS> I would cheer up (well, in the long run I will certainly), but there's this neighbor of mine to whom I just don't know whether I should say "hello' any more or not. AVE

06-11-2002, 02:55 PM	#9
Laurentius Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Lucky Bucky, Oz Posts: 5,645	AVE DMB <DMB> Honour in 18th-century polite society meant a reputation of chastity for a woman... <LAURENTIUS> In some parts of the world it still does. <DMB> ...and for a man a readiness to fight (to the death if necessary) any man who insulted one. <LAURENTIUS> But it became illegal as the central authority gained more power <DMB> I don't think we would be impressed by such an interpretation of honour in our century. <LAURENTIUS> Of course, we wouldn't. Yet, what could we become impressed by? AVE

06-11-2002, 03:14 PM	#10
Laurentius Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Lucky Bucky, Oz Posts: 5,645	Koyaanisqatsi and tronvillain Yeah, integrity makes more sense nowadays. And it works with small communities and strangers due to the more palpable incentives. Still, I look around and I find it hard to identify a man of honor/integrity. AVE

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.