Honor and Morality

[DSypherMe]

The dictionary defines Conscience as:

Conscience:
"the inner sense of what is right or wrong in one's conduct or motives, impelling one toward right action"
"the complex of ethical and moral principles that controls or inhibits the actions or thoughts of an individual"
"an inhibiting sense of what is prudent"

Conscience is an ability or a faculty that distinguishes whether one's actions are right or wrong. Distinguishing between "right" and "wrong". That is something I think each of us does every day. However, distinguishing between two terms which they themselves are defined by each person individually seems somewhat asinine. I mean, what is the point of distinguishing between right and wrong when there seems to be no universal right and wrong.

One of the most arrogant things a person could say is to tell people, “Here is the morality that you should live by.” This is not my intent. This is what I personally believe and these are my opinions and it is your choice to agree or disagree with them.

The dictionary defines Morality as:
“conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct”
“moral quality or character”
“a doctrine or system of morals”

Socially it could be said there are two distinct definitions of Morality: Personal Interpretation Morality and Universal Application Morality.
“Personal Interpretation Morality” refers to a personal set values, or codes of conduct that distinguish between right and wrong. This is not what is objectively right or wrong, but only what is considered right or wrong by an individual. For the most part right and wrong acts are classified as such because they are thought to cause personal benefit or harm, but it is possible that many individual moral beliefs are based on prejudice, ignorance, or even hatred. Personal Interpretation Morality is interpreted by each individual for themselves and each individual’s personal Morality may or may not be the same as another’s. This is similar to the idea of tolerance: “What is right for me may or may not be right for you and what is wrong to me may or may not be wrong to you.”
On the other hand, “Universal Application Morality” refers directly to what is right and wrong, regardless of what people think. This is characterized by definitive statements such as, "That act is immoral" rather than descriptive ones such as, "Many believe that act is immoral”. In Universal Application Morality there are universal moral absolutes that apply to everyone, regardless of what they believe personally. “No matter what you believe personally, this is right and that is wrong.” Personally, I think that these two perspectives on Morality are incomplete separately but modified together they are what I call, Inherent Morality. I think that each and every person has within them the basic capability and understanding of right and wrong; moral and immoral. However, I also think that this basic Morality is universal to all people and it is the choice of the individual to act morally or immorally; do the right thing or do the wrong thing.

Here are but a very few of the innumerable moral codes found all throughout history in every culture and society: The Ten Commandments of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam; The Golden Rule; the Five Precepts and the Noble Eightfold Path of Buddhism; the ancient Egyptian code of Ma'at; the Yamas and Niyama of the Hindu scriptures; the Ten Indian Commandments; The Code of Hammurabi; Nine Noble Virtues of Asatru; the eleven principles of Nihtscada; and the Knight’s Code of Chivalry. If you take the time to research these moral codes, you will notice many similar or even identical ideals concerning “right” and “wrong” behavior. How is this possible? How can so many different cultures and religions all seem to share similar points of Morality?

If Morality was truly, “to each their own” and notions of right and wrong were based solely on the benefits or negatives for the individual then the likelihood of similar moral codes in various religions and civilizations would be near impossible. If you truly believe in Personal Interpretation Morality than you would have to accept that Adolf Hitler’s actions were right because he believed what he did was morally right. That may be an extreme example of Personal Interpretation Morality, however, if a person believed that cheating on a spouse was morally acceptable then no one could challenge that belief and call them down for doing something wrong because, according to Personal Interpretation Morality, each person creates and defines their own morality independently of anyone else and subject to only themselves. This kind of moral interpretation could never result in the various moral codes found throughout human history.
Well, that leaves Universal Application Morality, yet that doesn’t quite work either, because not every point of every moral code is identical and what’s more, the religious systems and cultures in which these moral codes are found are very different from each other. If Universal Application Morality was truly “universal” then all religions and civilizations would have the same moral code. It could be said that true Universal Application Morality would result in only one civilization and one religion, because all people would fall under the same moral code, however, this is not historically evident. Morality is a hybrid of the two. It is inherent in all people, yet it is expressed and defined differently from person to person and culture to culture. This Inherent Morality that all people possess creates a rudimentary sense of right and wrong when applied to a given choice. People get “a feeling” about what choice to make and say to themselves, “This feels right” or “This feels wrong.” Inherent Morality that is the guiding force behind the moral codes of the world and can be defined and expressed as a universal moral code applicable to all people. Honor is a form of this Inherent Morality.

Honor as defined by the dictionary is:
“Honesty, fairness, or integrity in one's beliefs and actions”
“a source of credit or distinction”
“high respect, as for worth, merit, or rank”

"Honor is deemed to be exactly what determines a person's character"

As I researched Honor, its definition, the various historical personages and peoples considered by many to be honorable, and the modern interpretation of Honor, I began to wonder: What are the aspects of an individual’s behavior and mentality that would define them as Honorable? I realized, it is not a single attribute but a collection of moral values and I began to list these values of Honor in a set of rules. What follows is that set of rules that I believe forms the most complete and comprehensive description of Honor. The universal moral code that is guided by the Inherent Morality of all people, derived from no specific religious ideology, and completely without any religious connotation is the Rules of Honor.

Rules of Honor

Rule 1:
Humility
To be honorable one must learn humility and place the needs of others above one’s own needs with an attitude of service. The purpose of the First Rule is to take the natural selfish focus on one's own personal desires and refocus it on others thus creating a situational awareness of the needs of others. This does not mean that one cannot have desires or ambitions, but rather one’s personal self gratification does not come at the expense of those in need. If the mentality for all was self focus, then each would have only the focus of one’s self, however, if all were focused on others then each one would have the focus of many and there would be the mentality of, “for the benefit of all” not “for the benefit of one”. One with Honor would focus on others before focusing on one’s self.

Rule 2:
Respect.
To be Honorable, one must always be respectful; showing respect in all things and to all things. By dictionary definition respect is, an ”attitude of consideration or high regard”, or “good opinion, honor, or admiration” Respect is a synonym of Honor and the respect of the Honorable is a universal respect. It is respect for others, respect for one's self, respect for the environment in which one lives, respect for all life, and respect for all things. In showing respect one earns respect. Respect for one's self teaches value in one's appearance, no matter what that appearance may be, and one must respect the body of one’s self as well as the body of others at all times.

Rule3:
Honesty.
Yet another synonym of honor, Honesty and its application goes far beyond simply not lying or cheating. Honesty is more than an action, it is a mentality. It is a way to perceive the world and a thought process that affects every choice. The dictionary defines Honesty as “the quality or fact of being honest; uprightness and fairness, truthfulness, sincerity, or frankness; freedom from deceit or fraud.” In addition, it could be said that Honesty is “speaking truth and creating trust in the minds of others. This includes all varieties of communication, both verbal and non-verbal. Honesty implies a lack of deceit." Creating trust in the minds of others and having no deceitful intentions, is the Honesty of Honor. One cannot be honorable unless one is also honest.

Rule 4:
Wisdom.
To properly apply wisdom to Honor, I feel I must first define it. According to the dictionary, wisdom is “the ability to apply relevant knowledge in an insightful way, especially to different situations” or “the ability to make a decision based on the combination of knowledge, experience, and intuitive understanding.”
Another possible definition for wisdom might be, “the adaptation and application of intelligence and relative experience to a choice.” However, to fully understand this definition I feel I must also define intelligence.
The dictionary defines intelligence as, the “Capacity of mind, especially to understand principles, truths, facts or meanings, acquire knowledge, and apply it to practice; the ability to learn and comprehend”. Another definition of intelligence is: "A very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience.”
Perhaps a more concise definition of intelligence might be, “the ability to apply knowledge in order to perform better in an environment", or even “the ability to apply and adapt acquired knowledge to solve a problem or answer question."
Given these definitions, it could be said that wisdom is taking the proper or correct course of action in any given situation and that knowing that course of action is a matter of experience, knowledge, and/or outside influence, however, it is impossible to know every wise course of action in every situation and if one has no experience, fails to gain knowledge, and/or does not heed outside influence, one’s choices could be considered unwise or foolish.
In Honor, wisdom is something to be sought after and used at all times. One should seek wise counsel and study the wisdom of others (past and present) then apply that wisdom to every choice. Life is a series of choices and for every choice there are wise and unwise options. One should strive to always make wise choices and if one does not know the wise choice one should seek the advice of those with wisdom. To live honorably, one must have wisdom.

Rule 5:
Purity.
To be honorable one must be pure in body, mind, and spirit. In the dictionary Purity is defined as, “the condition or quality of being pure; freedom from anything that debases, contaminates, pollutes, etc; freedom from guilt or evil; physical chastity; freedom from foreign or inappropriate elements; careful correctness; cleanness or spotlessness; the absence in speech or writing of slang or other elements deemed inappropriate”. Purity includes keeping one's self from impure activities, environments, and behaviors. One who is pure maintains a clean body, clean mind, clean speech, and a clean living environment. One cannot be honorable unless one strives to remain pure in all aspects of life.


Rule 6:
Courage.
Courage as defined in the dictionary is, “the quality of mind or spirit that enables a person to face difficulty, danger, pain, or fear, with self-possession, confidence, and resolution; without fear; bravery; to act in accordance with one's beliefs, especially in spite of criticism.”

Courage is the ability to confront fear, pain, risk, danger, uncertainty, or intimidation and remain steadfast in the face of physical pain, hardship, or threat of death. It is upholding a moral or just standard in the face of popular opposition, shame, scandal, or discouragement. Courage is the mental and moral strength to venture, persevere, and withstand danger, fear, or difficulty. To be honorable one must be courageous in all aspects and situations. Inaction is not an option for the honorable. The courageous will always stand for what is right and against what is wrong, no matter the threat, danger, or cost; and the courage to adhere to one’s beliefs is one’s integrity.

Integrity, as defined by the dictionary is the “adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; the state of being whole, entire, or undiminished and sound, unimpaired, or perfect condition”. To remain whole and in perfect condition, keeping one’s integrity intact, one must not fail to adhere to the moral and ethical principles one believes in. To be honorable, one must always have the courage fight what is wrong, defend what is right, protect the unprotected, and to ensure one’s integrity is never compromised.

Rule 7:
Charity.
In the dictionary, Charity is defined as, “generous actions or donations to aid the poor, ill, or helpless; something given to a person or persons in need; a charitable act or work; a benevolent feeling, especially toward those in need or in disfavor; benevolence or generosity toward others or toward humanity”. Charity is the giving of help to those in need. This is an unlimited loving-kindness to all others. More than just the thought, it is the action of giving. To be honorable one must not only be aware of the needs of others before one's self but also attend to those needs and freely give of one's money, goods, and/or time to those less fortunate. One cannot be honorable without also being charitable.

These are my personal Rules of Honor, they are what I believe, and they may not be universally accepted by all people. I believe that each and every person has Honor within them and that each and every person must define their Honor for themselves. The question of morality is this:
Are you honorable?

Read more at:
Religion and Politics

 

[Eudaimonist]

I have my own virtue ethics.

Anyway, this reads like a cut and paste. Is there anything you'd like to discuss?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[grasping the after wind]

Yes, I am an honorable man. So were Brutus and Cassius both honorable men.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I have my own virtue ethics.

Anyway, this reads like a cut and paste. Is there anything you'd like to discuss?


eudaimonia,

Mark

There's a link to a blog by "A Simple Man" and that's where it's copied from.
DSypherMe, are you "A Simple Man"?

 

[DSypherMe]

I have my own virtue ethics.

Anyway, this reads like a cut and paste. Is there anything you'd like to discuss?


eudaimonia,

Mark

What I was hoping to discuss was the validity of the Rules of Honor. Do you agree or disagree with what I have written? Do the Rules of Honor adequately define the term Honor? Do you consider yourself to be honorable and if so what quality or qualities would you say qualify you as honorable?

Yes, I am an honorable man. So were Brutus and Cassius both honorable men.

How were they honorable? What about their lives and actions made them honorable? Were they honorable for brief moments or did they live the majority of their lives honorably?

There's a link to a blog by "A Simple Man" and that's where it's copied from.
DSypherMe, are you "A Simple Man"?

Yes, I changed accounts.

 

[quatona]

The dictionary defines Conscience as:

Conscience:
"the inner sense of what is right or wrong in one's conduct or motives, impelling one toward right action"
"the complex of ethical and moral principles that controls or inhibits the actions or thoughts of an individual"
"an inhibiting sense of what is prudent"

Conscience is an ability or a faculty that distinguishes whether one's actions are right or wrong. Distinguishing between "right" and "wrong". That is something I think each of us does every day. However, distinguishing between two terms which they themselves are defined by each person individually seems somewhat asinine. I mean, what is the point of distinguishing between right and wrong when there seems to be no universal right and wrong.

For starters, the same point as in distinguishing between good and bad music, or between pleasantly or unpleasantly tasting food when there seem to be no universal standards for those.

 

[Eudaimonist]

What I was hoping to discuss was the validity of the Rules of Honor.

Okay, that sounds interesting.

Do you agree or disagree with what I have written? Do the Rules of Honor adequately define the term Honor?

They define the term for you, perhaps, but I don't think that the essential idea behind "honor" requires all of your content.

I also personally don't care about trying to distill similarities between various moralities. I don't see much value in this. You may simply distill common errors.

I don't believe that "intuitionism" should be taken too far. IMV, actions may be beneficial or harmful, and so there is an objective and observable basis for right and wrong, however, similarities between different moralities aren't necessarily the result of intuitively grasping the right thing to do. They may be similar because people are trying to think about the same experience -- human life. Shared humanity may lead to shared opinions about right and wrong. And they may intuitively either hit upon the right answer, or make a common philosophical error and hit on the wrong answer.

Personally, I have serious quibbles with several of your elements. I do not dispute that they might fit someone's notion of "honor", but they don't fit my notion of virtue.

I would never practice what is described below as Humility. I would much prefer Aristotelian virtue of magnanimity, or Ayn Rand's virtue of pride, to that.

I don't think that one should place others before self. I do think that one should cultivate an awareness of others, and be sensitive to how one lives within a larger system of people, and allow one to be moved to help the people one cares about, but one should always be very clear on who one is and what one ought to do with one's life. Not service (in either direction), but the kind and respectful interaction of independent equals who have lives of their own.

For similar reasons, I can't support your element of Charity. I do believe in a sort of charity as a minor virtue, but this is always charity-in-moderation. It always has limits, and your description suggests that there should be none.

Purity strikes me as odd. I certainly don't object to some form of purity as a consequence of virtue (such as being free of guilt), but I don't relate to this idea of being "pure" as a virtue.

Respect, Honesty, and Courage all sound fine to me.

Do you consider yourself to be honorable and if so what quality or qualities would you say qualify you as honorable?

I consider myself to strive for integrity in the exercise of virtue for the sake of personal flourishing, according to my growing understanding of what this entails. I have never felt attracted to the word "honor", so I'm not exactly certain what I would be claiming if I were to declare myself "honorable".

I hold to many virtues as best as I am able, including rationality, authenticity, prudence, integrity, honesty, independence, justice, creativity, kindness, civility, generosity, and proper pride.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Beechwell]

In your discussion of morality, have you considered the possibility that morality is neither a fundamental ("objectve") law nor each owns private definition, but an agreement within a society?
If you consider that successful societies would need moral codes that are - by and large - beneficial to them, this would explain both the fundamental similarities between human moral codes, and a decree of variability.
Consider that one may say morality is different in another culture, but one would never say it is different for each indivial human. And neither would we apply human morality to animals or other aspects of the universe. That's why I think it is save to say that morality is a property of a society, not of an individual human nor the universe itself.

Of course biology also plays a part in how we create morality. So-called mirror-neurons let is feel the experiences of another as if we ourselves experienced it. From that it is only a small step to the golden rule.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Consider that one may say morality is different in another culture, but one would never say it is different for each indivial human.

Actually, I would have no difficulty saying that. If morality is different for another group of people, it may be different for another group... of one individual.

You might think this because you see morality as purely interpersonal -- as how we treat each other. But morality can include how one treats oneself, and this can't be explained well by interpersonal agreements and negotiations.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Beechwell]

Actually, I would have no difficulty saying that. If morality is different for another group of people, it may be different for another group... of one individual.

You might think this because you see morality as purely interpersonal -- as how we treat each other. But morality can include how one treats oneself, and this can't be explained well by interpersonal agreements and negotiations.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I don't believe though that you can define you own morality independently from any one else's and have other people accept that as a valid moral code. It can be accepted only if it either if it sufficiently conforms with general morality, or if you can imprint your morality on your whole social environment.

Of course a certain "bandwith" of moralities exist in any (larger) society. But I would claim that they are limitied in how far they can deviate by how closely connected the society is.

If morality also concerns how you treat yourself is debetable, I'd say. Yes, there is a morality of wether suicice is acceptable, or how you should treat your own body, but I think those are only tied to morality as far as your role in society is concerned (killing yourself leaves a lot of people unhappy, to say the least; and getting yourself sick has an effect on how you can contribute to society).
I don't think such a thing as morality exist for one human living entirely on his/her own

 

[grasping the after wind]

How were they honorable? What about their lives and actions made them honorable? Were they honorable for brief moments or did they live the majority of their lives honorably?

I was just taking Marc Antony's word for that.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I don't believe though that you can define you own morality independently from any one else's and have other people accept that as a valid moral code.

Why should I care if other people accept my moral code? I don't. I would stand alone against the world.

Yes, there is a morality of wether suicice[sic] is acceptable, or how you should treat your own body, but I think those are only tied to morality as far as your role in society is concerned

I don't agree. The classic Greek virtues were accepted as moral ideals, and they were largely self-focused for the sake of peace of mind and the harmony of one's soul.

Anyway, I disapprove of descriptive approaches to morality that treat the study of morality as mere sociology. Once one removes oughts from morality, then all one can do is study how moral ideas have become popular, which doesn't explain what justifies them and makes them obligatory.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Beechwell]

Why should I care if other people accept my moral code? I don't. I would stand alone against the world.

But then a any standartized set of behaviours would be a moral code. There must be more to your personal moral code than that you define it and that you aim to adhere to it.
Maybe let me put it another way: If in a society everyone defines their moral code for themselves without regard of the moral codes of others, or some overarching common elements, than in my opinion that society would be without morality in any common sense of the word.

I don't agree. The classic Greek virtues were accepted as moral ideals, and they were largely self-focused for the sake of peace of mind and the harmony of one's soul.

I don't think this necessarily contradicts what I said about self-centered morality.

Anyway, I disapprove of descriptive approaches to morality that treat the study of morality as mere sociology. Once one removes oughts from morality, then all one can do is study how moral ideas have become popular, which doesn't explain what justifies them and makes them obligatory.

I'm not entirely sure I understand this correctly. But where do these "oughts" come from in your opinion, and how are they justified?
I say, these "oughts" come from the society's need to successfully regulate interactions between its members, in order for it to survive and thrive.

 

[Eudaimonist]

But then a any standartized set of behaviours would be a moral code.

If they are regarded as prescriptive, that's exactly right.

There must be more to your personal moral code than that you define it and that you aim to adhere to it.

No, there is nothing more needed.

I'm not entirely sure I understand this correctly. But where do these "oughts" come from in your opinion, and how are they justified?

By reference to the requirements of human life. Or, to put it another way, the needs associated with human well-being. Surviving and thriving, as you put it.

I say, these "oughts" come from the society's need to successfully regulate interactions between its members, in order for it to survive and thrive.

Society doesn't have needs; individuals do. Society doesn't survive and thrive; individuals do. Individuals need morality to guide their decision-making to survive and thrive as individuals.

It's true that individuals live in society, and so one is trying to survive and thrive in a social context. Nevertheless, one is trying to make one's way as an individual in society. Morality is not purely about social interaction, but about all areas of decision-making, including very personal areas. Surviving and thriving isn't a purely social activity.


eudaimonia,

Mark