The concept of Honour
robert_jones asked "Is the concept of honour socially beneficial or socially harmful?"*
Although I can think of several concepts all called "Honour", without the presence of at least one of them you can not have a functioning society.
( pontification underneath )
Although I can think of several concepts all called "Honour", without the presence of at least one of them you can not have a functioning society.
( pontification underneath )
Comments 26
Not necessarily wasteful, although I scream inwardly at the gaping chasm between appearance and reality. If the people in charge know what they're doing, it can be manipulated for the purposes of philanthropy. Eg Venetian Republic. It's certainly easier than convincing everyone to my way of thinking.
Not sure how much difference there is between Honour Bestowed and Honour Displayed, though the rules are more explicit in the latter. To weigh in with some educational theory, one result of encouraging learners to become independent is that external reward systems (merits, chocolate, etc) become meaningless. This has distinct disadvantages in a community where control (rather than corporate responsibility) is the usual mode of being.
Reply
Alternatively it could be something to do with the fact that I see integrety as being, inherently in the word, an internal thing, different from person to person, and each seperately and uniquely valuable in its own right. Whereas honour to me implies some external value. Integrety suggests that the 'you' that you are being true to has some kind of inner logic, wheras honour could imply just arbitrary rules.
Does that make any sense?
Reply
When you say that honour implies 'external value', do you mean something closer to 'objective truth' or 'imposed/hierarchical conventions'? And to throw another complication into the mix, how does integrity relate to deception and transparency? I'd value your thoughts . . .
Reply
I don't believe in objective truth :P I believe in personal integrety of belief. So yeah, imposed/hierarchical conventions, but also covering what some of what others would describe as objective truth, I suspect. Although mostly in context I was talking about imposed conventions by anyone's definition anyway. Honour is always going to be societally based, and there really can't be absolute truths when it comes to people and societies, not even in a theoretical sense, I'd've thought....
Integrety - I think you can be deceptive and still hold your integrety as long as you are self-aware; deliberately deceptive for a purpose you believe is right, for example. Or... acting with integraty but without letting anyone see you are doing so, not being transparent about it in that sense.
Self-deception - now that's more difficult. I suspect you can't be self-deceptive and have personal intergrety at the same time.
Reply
Why not?
Reply
Obviously that can only apply to individuals, rather than society as a whole - if everyone acted with integrity, overt displays of honour and concerns over saving face would be irrelevant. Integrity is the most highly valued because it is so rare.
Reply
Point. Definitely a point. One of humanity's great strengths is that broken people can still inspire greatness.
I think the consensus view against external honour stems from suspicion - who's setting the agenda? What counts as an honourable action and why?
Reply
Interestingly, very few Captains of Industry make the New Years Honours List unless their commercial empire satisfies the legal minimum on employing the disabled, racial equality, and does a bit for Prince Charles' projects on providing opportunities and training in the inner cities.
No matter how much you donate to the ruling party's campaign fund, you have to do some identifiable good: the honours are used to enforce - or at least, to encourage - honourable behaviour.
Reply
Leave a comment