Poetry Forum

Full Version: A question of honour:
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
first of, what is honour (not definition in the dictionary) to you?
does it even exist?

rowens

I think it's a balancing act between uncompromising self dignity and universal compassion and active understanding. That you never take decisions lightly, that you and the specific loved ones in your life come first (loved ones or yourself, first: in moderation as much as possible); but that you never deceitfully, underhandedly take advantage of strangers or "nonloved ones" unless there's absolutely no time or options to do otherwise. And that you admit when you have been deceitful, as soon as you can, and try to make amends for. And that you never slack off those responsibilities to yourself and others, that your main work in life be these considerations and strivings.
now i feel like i have no honour Big Grin

i long while ago i lived by the code of honour among thieves type of thing but it was false honour.
done to protect the guilty, though shalt not grass on a co conspirator etc. i do hate people who grass others up (partners in crime, but only because it's their friends they're screwing over. i think not grassing someone up can also be a discoverable thing. if my friend raped someone i'd ring the police in an instant and prop slap him around a bit first. but is that honour? i think it's different for everyone. we do thing for the families honour, or the schools honour, i think real honour is borne from being unselfish. i also thing acting morally plays a huge part of honour.
real honour is born out of unselfishness,i like that

rowens

Selfish people are usually shown more honor than selfless people. For every person that's all about take take take there's so many more that will give in and give that person what they want, so the selfish people simply take honor and people go along with it.
that's not honour,that's self glorification
you can't take honour, you either have it, or don't have it. to seemingly take it is more a dishonourable act than an honourable one isn't it? that some people are sheep really means nothing. following orders can be an honourable act.

rowens

Honor has to be real, in what you really do and think and feel. To be honorable. But you won't always be respected; and depending where you are in your life, you might get nothing but disrespect and condemnation for acting honorably. And that makes people doubt themselves. You mentioned honor among thieves, I'm used to people that won't respect you or feel you have any honor at all unless you're brave enough to steal or attack people for no reason. And since they feel that way they'll steal from or attack anyone that's not willing to behave that way. Culture as I've experienced it has a strong gang mentality. And I feel that group mentality is always questionable. I think it's as questionable and unhealthy as a paranoid schizophrenic mentality. People grow up believing that you should honor only those that are smart and advanced enough to not believe in any outdated, ready-made morals, and are strong enough to take what they want with no scruples; and that is respected and rewarded.

So what is more honorable in a situation like that? Being quiet and minding your own business, hoping nobody will do anything bad to you; or openly showing disrespect and condemnation for people that behave selfishly despite how much praise they get in your community? You can be honorable in the way you live your own personal life; but does each person have a responsibility to the rest of the world, to speak up if you're aware and can't forget the wrongs committed around you everyday, and throughout the planet? To at least attempt open discussions as much as possible about what's going on in places beyond your means of assistance. How honorable is the demand for responsibility?
the honour among thieves thing is one of not implicating anyone else, not committing hard crimes, for instance honour among thieves allows then to grass a rapist up or a child molester. often honour is all about getting little or no respect. it has nought to do with accolades etc. you should honour people who are clever as being honourable, though there's nothing wrong with honouring them for being clever; theres a distinction to be made.

rowens

Basically you want to do your best to wrap your mind around everything, to the best if your ability, so that you can honor others appropriately. And if you accomplish that, you deserve to feel honorable. It's not simple though. The more you're able to consider things, the more responsibility falls on you.---Others need to chime in here. That's what you want, isn't it? I keep running my mouth.
Honor means conducting oneself in a principled way (what principles those actually are may vary, but honor most often applies to moral values) even at cost to one's self. Being honored has nearly nothing to do with being honorable... those have become two different ideas. At our house we watch this show with Donald Trump in it (The apprentice, celebrity edition). Anyone who shows honor by taking responsibility instead of letting other teammates take the fall is consequently fired. It is made very clear they weren't fired for doing a poor job... they were fired because they weren't selfish and savvy enough to play the corporate game.
(09-18-2012, 08:55 AM)rowens Wrote: [ -> ]Basically you want to do your best to wrap your mind around everything, to the best if your ability, so that you can honor others appropriately. And if you accomplish that, you deserve to feel honorable. It's not simple though. The more you're able to consider things, the more responsibility falls on you.---Others need to chime in here. That's what you want, isn't it? I keep running my mouth.
any and all or just you is fine Big Grin
i think we can act with honour and bestow honour, but they're not the same
think of samuri who live by a code, and die by it. The yakuza while criminal also have an honour code, and pay a self inflicted or ordered price should they break it. many of them cut off a finger if they disrespect their boss. (disrespect could be as little as letting him dow, or going against his orders.) the premise is that the loss of a finger is not as great as the loss of the life. and the boss doesn't lose a worker.

soldiers often live by a code of honour

rowens

Most soldiers and workers, like family members too, operate within their given scope. And that's all they need to do. When they love or respect someone or something. But they have to be biased, and they're honored for that, even by their enemies. Honor and bravery can coexist with questionable things, brave soldiers kill random people as collateral damage, and they have to live with that. So you can admit that a man is an honorable soldier, and still attack the institution he serves. But when a group of people break into your neighbor's house and tear it apart, and you have people talking about how tough and honorable it is to behave like a thug, that just seems like a joke.
again being honoured for killing or for being brave is different from having honour, often honour makes other people angry.

disobeying an order because it's wrong...that's honour abiding by a set of rules or concepts.
a soldier may kill on a broad scale but an honourable soldier will not kill a child unless it's through fear of death. and even them some men would rather die. again, crime is not an honourable act though it could be; a mother whose prepared to kill her husband in order to stop her child being molested. honour sometimes has little to do with being good to the masses.