There were times and places in human history (not too many) when the word had a well defined meaning and the meaning was important to those who used it.

Today, the word sounds archaic, slightly idealistic and ridiculous.

So, in this thread, I would like to explore what the word means to Babblers, both in theoretical and practical terms.

Some comments of my own:

Some things are hardwired in our brains, as a result of biological evolution. We may call them instinct if we want. Many are shared by other animals. Some examples are:

- intelligence
- curiosity
- self protection
- desire to love/be loved
- desire to mate
- desire to procreate
- desire to protect our young
- desire to belong
- ability to conceptualize
- ability to learn language

Some things are learned from the environment we were born into. Some examples are:

- culture
- laws
- ethics
- religion

There is a multilayer relationship among our social concepts. The human species is a tribal species, just like the wolves and the gorillas. We depend on each other for our survival. The relationship of our social concepts, applied to members of one tribe, can be seen as:

1./ Nature (or God) created us near identical, with near identical NEEDS of SURVIVAL.

2./ Our near identical needs created near identical VALUES.

3./ Our near identical values created a set of ETHICAL rules (do-s and don’t-s)

4./ Our dependence on each other created a need for LOYALTY to our ethical rules

5./ Our loyalty to ethical rules created an unwritten SOCIAL CONTRACT.

6./ This social contract created a code of HONOUR, or standards of socially acceptable behaviour. Any act or attitude that enhances the chances of survival for the group is good. The opposite is bad. Since individual members accept the protection and nourishment of the tribe, the only HONOURABLE CONDUCT is to seek individual survival/welfare ONLY through the survival/welfare of the tribe. If the two are in conflict, the needs of the tribe come first. Most social animals (wolfs, gorillas, etc) and primitive human tribes take this for granted (only ‘advanced’ human beings want it both ways). Serious antisocial behaviour is called TREASON and is punishable by death or expulsion (consider ‘crime against humanity’ as an example).

7./ In our complicated world, individuals have simultaneous and often CONFLICTING MEMBERSHIPS in many tribes: immediate family, extended family, work-group, religion, political party, social organizations, country, race, species and LIFE.

8./ Conflict resolution requires PRIORITIZING our loyalties.

9./ Since an individual group accepts the protection and nourishment of the larger group it depends on, the only HONOURABLE CONDUCT is to seek survival/welfare of a group ONLY through the survival/welfare of the containing group. If the two are in conflict, the needs of the containing group come first.

10./ In this sense our ultimate loyalty should be to LIFE on our Planet. So, even though the concept of ‘Honour’ is a social construct and depends on the unwritten social contract of the tribe, however this social contract is completely determined by our biological and social needs which are hard wired in our brains and bodies, so, IN THIS SENSE, the concept of HONOUR is a BUILT IN, or innate concept.

One word of caution: we all know that the ‘official’ rules of modern tribes (nations), as embodied by the laws of the land and the propaganda spouted by the mainstream media, are often contrary to the unwritten social contract. They are created and shaped to serve the interests of a minority subgroup: the ELITE, that holds most of the wealth and power, and its primary motivation is to maintain this position.

[ 19 January 2003: Message edited by: Zatamon ]

quote:

---

Come to think of it, the only place I remember seeing it used in mainstream media is “Start Trek”, where Klingons use it all the time, and we know that Klingons are often ridiculed there.

---

quote:

---

One word of caution: we all know that the ‘official’ rules of modern tribes (nations), as embodied by the laws of the land and the propaganda spouted by the mainstream media, are often contrary to the unwritten social contract. They are created and shaped to serve the interests of a minority subgroup: the ELITE, that holds most of the wealth and power, and its primary motivation is to maintain this position.

---

In some countries it is honourable to die for your country.(The government's belief)

When this fundamental respect breaks down, people begin to do things to each other that wouldn't have been done as much before, because the line of reasoning starts to go, "Well, I figure the other guy's out to cheat me, so I better get ahead first by cheating him." (replace your pronouns as you see fit)

I do think that there is a certain instinctive drive that creates common ethical structures across cultures that derive from maximizing self-preservation within the social-animal context we evolved in. For example, all cultures have basic prohibitions against murder, rape, incest and theft.

However, honorable behavior is in some ways a meta-ethical thing; you need to have a basic respect for ethical structures to begin with as well as a basic respect for other humans. If you don't have that, you are not an honorable human.

By this standard, Gordon Campbell is clearly not honorable, since he sought to attain power by deception, and once in power, proceeded to show a blatant lack of regard for the people of society who depend on the goodwill of the majority for their continued existence.

quote:

---

10./ In this sense our ultimate loyalty should be to LIFE on our Planet.

---

In this sense Gordon Campbell can still be seen as "honourable" to the Liberal party, and Martin Niemoeller a traitor to the German people.

[ 19 January 2003: Message edited by: satana ]

quote:

---

satana: Which kind of "life"?

---

quote:

---

Doc: I do think that there is a certain instinctive drive that creates common ethical structures across cultures that derive from maximizing self-preservation within the social-animal context we evolved in. For example, all cultures have basic prohibitions against murder, rape, incest and theft.

---

[ 19 January 2003: Message edited by: Zatamon ]

If that means humans destroying themselves and taking out several complex ecosystems along with them, so be it. If it means nothing but bacteria remains, life survives and continues to evolve as it always has.

Nature doesn't "value" humans above its other forms. To nature we are just a trend. We are ultimately expendable.

Nature created us. We are an inextricable part of it, and have no choice but to behave by its rules. We kill, eat, cry, and fuck to survive. We follow our extincts, nature's "ethical" code. Our loyalty to nature is to do our part by trying to survive.

In this sense we can never betray nature. The idea of "honour" doesn't apply at this level.

quote:

---

Zatamon: Like cancer cells in a body, we destroy the host giving us life. Guess what happens to cancer cells after the body dies.

---

[ 19 January 2003: Message edited by: satana ]

quote:

---

satana: The idea of "honour" doesn't apply at this level.

---

[ 19 January 2003: Message edited by: satana ]

quote:

---

satana: We didn't betray "life". We betrayed ourselves.

---

Many unspoiled native cultures think of Earth as their Mother. One can betray one's mother. Even rape her.

[ 19 January 2003: Message edited by: Zatamon ]

And I think my choice would be an honourable one (by my definition of honour, as given in the first post).

[ 19 January 2003: Message edited by: Zatamon ]

quote:

---

MH: “Can anyone trace where the concept of honour emerged in our consciousness”

---

Honour is the prerequisite of survival. As satana said: “Nature created us. We are an inextricable part of it, and have no choice but to behave by its rules.” Wolves know this. Primates know this. Primitive human tribes have always known this. Honour is our interdependence embodied. Without honour we are lemmings looking for our cliff. Honour is life affirming. Dishonour embraces death. Maybe not immediately, not personally, but the human species can die by many, many little incremental steps. Destroying our habitat along with us. We see it around us every day. The poison in our air, our water, our food – it is all material manifestation of dishonour: of some human beings, somewhere, in some capacity, failing the test of ethical, honourable behaviour. I recommend the book: “A well of lies” about the Walkerton tragedy by Colin N. Perkel.

As clersal said: “Our earth does not have a government. I think we have to look to it to find out what honourable means.” I think she meant the honour in life, in nature, in survival.

It seems to me that honour involves living according to some set of high ideals. But that doesn't mean that everyone who acts honourably shares my ideals either.

(What people ought to do is usually set down in laws and ethics that a society shares; ideals that a society has eveolved, agreed about and expressed in clear and definite terms.)

Honour belongs with a set of social values that also includes integrity, truthfulness, fair dealing, reliability. Social values. These words can be meaningfully applied to transactions between responsible human individuals, groups of humans, or of a human with a member of another species - but, in the last case, only the human is bound by honour; the other species is bound by its own nature.

Honour is a human social concept. If we see wolves or gorillas acting in a way that we identify as similar to our own rules of social behaviour, we say they are acting honourably, but the wolf and the gorilla wouldn't know what we're talking about.

You can make a deal with another adult: I will help you today, if you promise to help me when I ask. The honourable other person will come to your aid. You can make a deal with society: I pay my UI dues and I expect to get some money if I lose my job. The honourable society delivers unemployment benefits.
You can make a deal with a human infant: I will pick you up and in return, you must stop crying. The baby will either stop crying or not, depending on what ails her, not on whether you kept your part of the bargain. That doesn't mean she's dishonourable; it just means she's not a responsible human. You can make a deal with a wolf: I'll set you free if you don't bite me. The wolf will probably bite you anyway. That doesn't mean he's dishonourable; it just means he's a wolf.

Instincts are hard-wired. Rules are learned. Without rules, and the maturity and freedom to subscribe to them (or not), there can't be a judgment on whether someone behaves honourably.

(Hope i got all the typos this time.)

[ 19 January 2003: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

The hijacking is obvious. It does not mean loyalty. SS guards had loyalty. It does not mean ‘integrity’. Bin Laden has integrity of some sort (his belief in his horribly misguided crusade seems genuine). At least to me, 'honour' means something GOOD. Random House (among other things) says: “high respect as for worth”. It is a concept implying worth: human value. And it is not a relative concept, but it mirrors our universal core values as human beings. Doc said very well: “I do think that there is a certain instinctive drive that creates common ethical structures across cultures that derive from maximizing self-preservation within the social-animal context we evolved in. For example, all cultures have basic prohibitions against murder, rape, incest and theft.”

quote:

---

I have never seen honour as a relationship to life itself (although this thread is a good argument for that interpretation).

---

I think humans have to re-think their social values.

quote:

---

Honour belongs with a set of social values........

---

Honour means representing this interest, even if it contradicts our paper-obligations. A spy, pretending and lying in order to defeat evil from inside is an honourable man. A law abiding citizen in the same regime is also a dishonourable human being.

I tried to link our social concepts into a cause-and-effect logical chain in the first post: SURVIVAL – NEEDS – VALUES – ETHICS – SOCIAL CONTRACT – HONOUR.

This chain ties HONOUR to our survival NEEDS. Regardless what our rulers pretend our interests are. We know what our interests are, without being told. We want to be healthy, secure, productive human beings, raising our families in a healthy, peaceful, cooperative society. We don’t believe we need to send our sons to the other end of the Globe to kill and be killed for that. Only madmen and morons could believe in that.

Honour is standing by our tribe and do our share in serving our common interests, regardless whether we get medals or prison terms for it.

[ 19 January 2003: Message edited by: Zatamon ]

An honourable person is a person who best remembers-- in the eyes of others-- his or her status in the big book o' favours. The honourable person honours his or her commitments-- the cooperation he or she owes to fellow cooperators-- even if it doesn't necessarily benifit his or her short term best interests.

I don't think it's about self-interest. I think it's about putting your neck out to save another human being and not caring what the rest of society or the powers that be think of you because you did it.

Maybe it's about being honest about what is going on maybe it's about telling the truth rather than what you know people want to hear.

Maybe it's about keeping the group together. Or standing your ground when everything in you wants to flea. Not because it helps you because hell you think the stand you make might mean something after you are gone.

If I have no honour for disobeying those in power over me to help friends of mine or myself then so be it I have no honour but the way I got this way might be interesting to note.

I think caring for decent people and trying to help them even if you are in violation of the rules or altruism is one of the traits that indicates honour even if it's against the laws of the screwed up mess that dares to call itself a state.

If I'm damned for thinking that or saying that I don't mind. If it be treason let us make the most of it. As you might have read in your history books our forefathers had to betray Great Britain to become a nation in the first place.

I'm with those folks not these people who don't have the moral courage to do what I've done and others like me. I may be a rebel but hell at least I'm honest about it.

So I'll keep getting thrown out of groups probably for the rest of my life that's nothing new.

As an outsider to this society I see honour as keeping your distance and no matter what happens trying to avoid any action that would bring the elite down to crush you. Try not to get caught breaking any of the rules and don't argue about it if they catch you. You might make them mad.

quote:

---

Orien: In your definition I've thrown away my honor several times...
...go by that rather than any standard of behavior passed down from any authority.

---

PS. In particular, I recommend rereading the last paragraph of the first post.

[ 21 January 2003: Message edited by: Zatamon ]

And I did not jump in to mediate, but replied, as he was talking to me (if you carefully reread his post, you can't help seeing it )

As far as your comment is concerned, I am sure it did not originate from innocent misunderstanding. What took you so long?

[ 21 January 2003: Message edited by: Zatamon ]

quote:

---

dc: How can you expect to say with happy faces what can only be expressed in words?

---

quote:

---

My only complaint is that no fingers have been added .... one would suffice.

---

quote:

---

.... I don't think he was necessarily addressing your very important views, although his thoughts did stem from them.
Before the urge strikes you to re-direct others to read your posts more carefully, perhaps you can try to develop a better understanding of the notion that not everyone thinks you are as important as you do.

---

I really do not see the problem. I also don't think sarcasm is very positive.

Your post had nothing to do with subject but perhaps 'protect' another poster who you feel is not able to answer for him or her self?

It might help if you too read over subject. The idea is to have a consensus of what honour is.

Zatamon posted on what he thought. I posted on what I thought as did ten other people, some who posted a number of times.

They are all connected but very different in their global impact.

To me the Global impact is the most important as it has it's name effect.

quote:

---

Angela: The topic of honour ... hmm, it's an outdated term

---

PS. Before my very good friend Angela gets "infuriated" again, let me state that this post implies nothing about her character and values. It was unfocused "sarcasm"...

[ 23 January 2003: Message edited by: Zatamon ]

Shameless use of a straw man argument. Based on what you wrote a stranger to the English language would assume that honour meant idealism.

To my mind honour is what you do to people when you hold them in high esteem for reasons that tie into the social situation of that time. So you honour a brave soldier going to war, you honour a respected judge, a recipient of an award... I just wanted to say that it’s an honour just to be nominated... snif snif. One who is honoured is not necessarily an ethical person or one who has anything but her own interests at heart, you can be placed into a position of honour and be a homicidal sociopath. So your little diatribe (whether directed at me or not) is illogical.

1./ 'Honour' as a noun has a meaning different from 'honour' as a verb.

2./ The word: 'honour' has been and is being used for unethical purposes just like many other terms (love, faith, duty, patriotism, etc.)

3./ To honour someone, and someone being an honourable person, are not necessarily related.

4./ My meaning of the word 'honour' (as a noun) covers the attitude of paying one's dues to one's tribe for benefits of interdependence received (not necessarily dues claimed by the manipulators)

5./ A society is viable as long as a sufficient number of its members behave in an honourable way (see 4./)

6./ Once the concept of honour (living up to mutual obligations) becomes 'outdated', society is doomed.

I hope this helps.

[ 23 January 2003: Message edited by: Zatamon ]

However, I will address your points most carefully so that you will be satisfied that I have read your post completely and considered them fully before responding, lest you once again berate me for not giving them the full attention that you imagine they deserve.

#1. It is true that honour can act as a verb as well as a noun. You need not (for future reference) point out such obvious grammatical truisms for we are all adept (as indeed are most kindergarten students) at discerning the difference.

#2 Although I think I know what you are implying here, let me just point out that the WORD honour cannot be used for unethical purposes, after all it is only a word and as such possesses no inherent ethical virtue

3./ Agreed
4./ This is more accurately referred to as reciprocity
5./ See # 4
6./ As fun as it is to use the word doomed, I have to step back and wonder why you insist on using such prophetic terminology. That aside, If I were to use reciprocity rather than honour then I will agree with # 6

[ 23 January 2003: Message edited by: angela N ]

[ 23 January 2003: Message edited by: angela N ]