As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
Honor: who needs it?
Qingu
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Let's talk about honor.
By honor, I mean something different than trust, which I think is a very good thing. Instead, what I mean by honor is the kind of thing that John McCain brags about: not giving up for the good of the cause. John McCain is "honorable" because he willingly went through years of torture instead of betraying his cause to become a propoganda piece for the Viet Cong.
Similarly, Muqtada al-Sadr was invoking honor when he promised to "fight the occupation until the last drop of his blood" (I've forgotten the exact quote). Mel Gibson's character in Braveheart was acting honorably when he refused to give in under torture, screaming "Freedom!!!" or some shit instead. Fighting to the very end is honorable. Surrendering is not honorable—unless you're allowed to surrender "with honor," which is another way of saying "saving face."
So why on earth do people value honor? It seems to me that the world would be a much better place if there were less stubborn fucks with an inflated importance of preserving their honor. Imagine if Muqtada al-Sadr was actually as honorable as he made himself out to be, and really did fight the Americans until his last drop of blood—Iraq would be an even bigger shithole than it is now. The refusal to give up the fight on principle is probably the main reason why Palestinians and Israelis can't get along. Japenese samurai would skewer themselves after their master died for honor's sake.
What's notable about all these examples is that the people honorably fighting and sacrificing their lives aren't even doing so to defend other people from dying—they're doing it to defend ideas, or to uphold cultural codes.
I hereby contend that cowardice is better than honor. If you're fighting an overwhelmingly superior force and you don't want to get painfully shot or killed, give up! If you're getting tortured, say whatever they want you to say on TV! Everyone knows you're just saying it under duress anyway. Refusing to give up and fighting until your last drop of blood often creates more problems than it helps prevent—not to mention giving certain presidential candidates a hollow but shiny pedigree to brag about. Let's throw "honor" in the same pile of trash as "faith"—these virtues are obselete in today's world.
By honor, I mean something different than trust, which I think is a very good thing. Instead, what I mean by honor is the kind of thing that John McCain brags about: not giving up for the good of the cause. John McCain is "honorable" because he willingly went through years of torture instead of betraying his cause to become a propoganda piece for the Viet Cong.
Similarly, Muqtada al-Sadr was invoking honor when he promised to "fight the occupation until the last drop of his blood" (I've forgotten the exact quote). Mel Gibson's character in Braveheart was acting honorably when he refused to give in under torture, screaming "Freedom!!!" or some shit instead. Fighting to the very end is honorable. Surrendering is not honorable—unless you're allowed to surrender "with honor," which is another way of saying "saving face."
So why on earth do people value honor? It seems to me that the world would be a much better place if there were less stubborn fucks with an inflated importance of preserving their honor. Imagine if Muqtada al-Sadr was actually as honorable as he made himself out to be, and really did fight the Americans until his last drop of blood—Iraq would be an even bigger shithole than it is now. The refusal to give up the fight on principle is probably the main reason why Palestinians and Israelis can't get along. Japenese samurai would skewer themselves after their master died for honor's sake.
What's notable about all these examples is that the people honorably fighting and sacrificing their lives aren't even doing so to defend other people from dying—they're doing it to defend ideas, or to uphold cultural codes.
I hereby contend that cowardice is better than honor. If you're fighting an overwhelmingly superior force and you don't want to get painfully shot or killed, give up! If you're getting tortured, say whatever they want you to say on TV! Everyone knows you're just saying it under duress anyway. Refusing to give up and fighting until your last drop of blood often creates more problems than it helps prevent—not to mention giving certain presidential candidates a hollow but shiny pedigree to brag about. Let's throw "honor" in the same pile of trash as "faith"—these virtues are obselete in today's world.
Qingu on
0
Posts
As for whether it's better to fight on in the face of impossible odds or hold out under torture: there's no one answer to that question. The trouble we have as a culture in deciding what's a virtue and what's a vice is that even the best virtues are going to be pointless in some situations. But if our definition of virtue is too subtle, too complex, or too context-sensitive people won't be able to internalize it. If our only two options are "never betray what you believe in" and "always betray what you believe in" - and since rules like this have to be simple to be effective, those might actually be our only options - I guess I'd pick the former.
In situations where sticking to your principles brings you nothing but long-term misery, maybe you should examine the principles themselves instead of whether or not it's okay to abandon principles in general.
If I had to take a stab at what honor is I'd have to call it a mixture of things somewhere between virtue, integrity and loyalty/trustworthiness.
Worf from Star Trek disagrees with you.
I think this virtue is obselete. If someone held a gun to my head and told me to pray to Jesus or he'd shoot, I'd pray my black little atheist heart out. This doesn't mean I wouldn't seek justice, later, from a position of safety, against the person who illegally threatened me. But I fail to see what sticking to principles for the sake of principles accomplishes. It seems a vestige of an older era where the principles defined and held together a physical community, often against hostile forces.
Of course, even in these older eras "honor" or "integrity" seems pretty stupid. The Hannukah story, for example, centers around Judah Macabee, who refused to bow down to the state Greek idols and decided to head a violent revolt instead. What a fucking asshole.
If you were any other man I would kill you were you stand!
Honor is being misused a lot, my best example would be a code of chivalry that old knightly orders lived by, that is to say risking personal safety for guts and glory in tournaments and accepting a surrender by your defeated opponent, defending the realm etc.
I don't think honor can be applied many things in the modern day. A soldier defending his country in Iraq is not honorable, he's a patriot. John McCain enduring torture for years is not honorable, he is a prisoner of war who feels his duty to his country is stronger then his sense of self-preservation, again, a patriot.
Someone who I would attribute honor in today's world would be an incorruptible judge who gives his all to the rule of law, ocasionally bending it if he feels a person is wronged (this would be one such case) who does what he does to better society or a poor african fisher who sacrifices his profit in order to provide affordable food to his community.
didn't McCain actually break under torture?
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/29/100012.shtml
My reaction to this isn't "what a great man, he helped save his comrades"—it's more "what a stubborn dipshit, I pity him for going through all that for nothing."
Obviously, avoiding torture to save your own hide when it will lead to the deaths of your friends is another issue.
Anyone would break under torture, I don't hold it against him. I wouldn't last half a day, if that.
If someone's constantly preaching how "honorable" they are and all thet jazz, or even just keeps up a quiet facade of the importance of honor, its important to see if they stick to their belief set when times aren't ideal. But, there is a line like you suggest. Seeing examples of where that line is (or isn't) is also important.
Not to derail here, but why the fuck do people always assign ownership to former girlfriends. You broke up, get the fuck over it. This shit just pisses me off because I see so many great people lose friendships or miss out on a great relationship because they're worried about an ex.
Edit: To clarify, I oppose sleeping around, but if you break off the relationship honestly beforehand with the intention of getting together with someone else I don't see a problem.
I didn't say ex-girlfriend, but your point is well taken and wasn't based on personal experience. I was just looking for something generally considered "dishonorable" but not so extreme.
Obviously the concept of what is honorable has changed over the years. But that's because what people value as important has changed accordingly. Maybe a hardcore fundie (really hardcore) would refuse to pray to Satan when they have a gun to their head because that would ultimately damn them in the eyes of God. Same for Judah Macabee. What's the point of compromising to save yourself now when it means eternal damnation for praying to false idols.
This is all based around my view of "principles" as essentially being equivalent to what you think would make the world around you the best it can be. I really don't think there's anyone sane with principles that they don't think will produce this result. For example no one out there is morally opposed to the color blue.
if you're fighting an overwhelmingly superior force, evolve your tactics. I'm in agreement that dying for "honor" is silly, but if the alternative is giving up, dying may have some merit(if you'd like me to put it into context, uprisings during the Ottoman empire were pretty much worthless with regards of gaining independence, but did an excellent job in aiding Russia for more than one casus beli ). So, I don't think that specific choice is a dichotomy.
Again not sure it's that simple. It's quiet easy to think of situations where the ability to actually disregard personal life & well being may save a shitload of goods/lives. Not sure we'd call the quality that holds the individual in such a case "honor" though.
Edit:
I believe that example disregards a situation where the "law" is against you as well as the guy with the gun. In a future society, we may not have such a problem, but nowadays, the ability set an example with personal sacrifice can still buy you credit with a lot of crowds in the world;o(
PS: I'm also totally going to be praying....
The point of war is not to die for your country, it's to make the other poor bastard die for his.
-Paton
Change your mind or I'll call you mean names.
No?
Hmmmmm.
I don't think that's a ringing endorsement of honor.
So is honest.
That doesn't say anything about the core concept of honesty, either.
That was also the man that got in deep shit and reassigned for abusing a subordinate for having PTSD and not wanting to fight.
Yes, and that's the difference between retreating when the odds are against you and cowering under a bed.
But it all comes back to what you think is best for the people that matter for you, doesn't it? These people, however perversely, believe that keeping their family pure from love marriages and dirty influences is best for their family. And by eliminating the people who are bringing those influences into your family, you are protecting those who you feel are uncorrupted.
Did you get your words confused or something? "Honor" is usually a quality one gains through actions, not by recommendations.
More open societies with better communication, wider variety of media options. Honor, for the most part, is mostly what you make of it based on how you were raise you'll believe certain things, but your neighbor is probably going to differ by no small amount. You don't get the kind of group think that leads to vendettas, suicide or much organized overt oppression. Honor isn't something to burn down a girls grade school or commit ethnic cleansing over.
women... jesus, the things that have been done to women in the name of honor over the years in every single damned culture... I don't have the words to describe it. Just unimaginable suffering for just so many for so long.
A man with no pride tends to cut and run at the first sign of difficulty, and doesn't usually accomplish much in life.
A man with too much pride will stick with what he's doing no matter what, even when he's clearly wrong; all kinds of trouble come from that. (Of course, admitting when you're wrong will hurt your pride, but have the opposite effect on your honor, so the two aren't always the same thing.)
The right amount -- the kind you earn through hard, productive work -- will earn you self-respect, which has all kinds of benefits; confidence and drive are two of the big ones, and those tend to be crucial components for success.
Another aspect of honor is trustworthiness, and that's a necessity for any society; our economy functions because we trust people to provide the goods and services we pay for, and when that trust falters -- because someone proves themselves untrustworthy -- we all suffer for it. The more untrustworthy people run loose in the system, the more it hurts the rest of us, and if everyone's untrustworthy, it all falls apart. For that reason, an honest society is a strong society.
Then there's the kind of honor that makes heroes. Heroes take risks. Sometimes they die, and sometimes they fail. But they push their honor just shy of that "pig-headed jackass" extreme.
Now, most of us will never have to face the sort of extreme, life-or-death situations we're talking about here. But let's say you do. Let's say this: The building you're in is on fire. You see a stranger pinned down under a desk. You might be able to help them, but if you do, it might be too late to get out. (Of course, there's no guarantee you'll get out anyway, but every second you wait makes it less likely.)
Ideally, your first instinct would be to take the risk and help, if for no other reason than because you'd want him to do the same for you.
And that raises an interesting question: What would a society built on heroism, where everyone was brave and honest, look like?
In the situations you describe, people are using honor as a cover for doing something shitty that benefits pretty much only themselves, except in the case of Braveheart. The English were really being total dickholes about that whole situation.
Steam | Twitter
No.
He signed a page of lies and gave information that wasn't even the slightest bit useful to them.
He only thinks he broke because he gave more than his rank and serial number, but he gave nothing important away. It's his own honor he broke there, not real information.
I don't think Falstaff was ever written to be a role model, per se. More like a guy we wish we could be if we could get away with it.
And what does it mean? Are we talking about honesty, fairness, and integrity? Or are we talking about the principle of holding your beliefs to the end? Or are we talking about a woman's virginity? :P You get the point. I'm going to use the honesty, fairness, and integrity definition because it most clearly represents what is being talked about here.
I think that as far as honor goes, it has a lot of importance that it has, even in today's society. Presuming the above definition, there are certainly situations in which it should be broken. While I don't want to go as far as to say that a person should break under a threat to their safety (that is a personal choice), there are many situations, such as threatening a loved one, where one can quite justifiably break their honor (Someone tells me to curse God or they kill my family, the choice is pretty clear).
However, True honor is personal. Someone can force you to do something you don't believe in, they can put a gun to your head a force you to spit on the cross (or worship it, depending on the case) but they cannot make you believe in your action. You may be forced to bow down, but just because you bow doesn't mean that you actually believe.
Now that I have said that, I come to realize that while McCain may have outwardly preserved his honor by dealing with 5 years in a POW camp and suffering torture, his response to his constituency shows that he is without honor. I am referring to his change of stance on almost every single issue. 7 years ago he denounced Jerry Falwell, now he has no problem with the guy; less time ago he denounced the Bush tax cuts, now they are embraced; and he disagreed and campaigned against Bush, but now gives him huge hugs and refuses to speak ill of the monkey.
What this shows us is that he is willing to change his ideals on a whim. We all know (or at least should) that just because a constituency feels an action should be pursued does not mean that it is just or the best way to run the country. That's why our system is set up the way it is, the founding fathers realized the mass population isn't smart enough to be given responsibility so we elect people smart and skilled enough to handle it. McCain at one time showed signs of being a man that would work to do what he saw was right despite Republican disagreement. Now he won't even follow his own campaign reform standards. Thus I say again, he is without honor. He is willing to do anything for the oval office and say anything for power.
I would rather vote for a man that will say something unpopular because he feels it is true than the man that will say whatever people want to hear. At least I can trust the man that risks unpopularity and it was precisely this that made me respect McCain in the past. However his inability to take this risk now has made me lose all respect for him and now I only trust him to be a mouthpiece for whomever will give him what he wants.
Clearly, he does-he must restore it, after all.
Having honor is due to being honorable- through just, fair, and righteous actions. Honestly, whether we need honor or not is dependent on how we define it. Is honor 'not cheating' on the battlefield, or is it making the best decisions?
Thou art sworn to uphold a Lord who participates in the forbidden torture of prisoners. Each night their cries of pain reach thee. Dost thou A) Show Compassion by reporting the deeds; or
During battle thou art ordered to guard thy commander's empty tent. The battle goes poorly and thou dost yearn to aid thy fellows. Dost thou A) Valiantly enter the battle to aid thy companions; or
Thou hast sworn to do thy Lord's bidding in all. He covets a piece of land and orders the owner removed. Dost thou A) serve Justice, refusing to act, thus being disgraced; or
Thou art a bounty hunter sworn to return an alleged murderer. After his capture, thou believest him to be innocent. Dost thou A) Sacrifice thy sizeable bounty for thy belief; or
In thy youth thou pledged to marry thy sweetheart. Now thou art on a sacred quest in distant lands. Thy sweetheart asks thee to keep thy vow. Dost thou A) Honor thy pledge to wed; or
Thou art at a crossroads in thy life. Dost thou A) Choose the Honorable life of a Paladin, striving for Truth and Courage; or
If you're referring specifically to this 'die for your principles' thing, I think the real problem is that people tend to have retarded principles.