What is Honor?

[Komissar]

Upright behavior motivated by moral integrity. The willingness to do or say what is right, or will facilitate the right result. Right : true, just, correct.

[Sting]

True True!! Call your hits and go back and res. This also applies to other things in life. Thanks Komissar.

[The Dwarf]

This was an essay that I wrote last year and am still working on currently. I would hope that some people might take the time to read it, some need it and some don't, but it still provides a good foundation of commonality. It uses linear logic to prove its points and sets the groundwork for discussion. Please enjoy....

The War of Justice and Honor
A philosophical essay by The Dwarf
5.08.08

In order to gain common ground we must first define Honor, the dictionary defines honor as “good name or public esteem”; “Reputation”; “a person of superior standing.” This definition is far from exhaustive and only provides a base from which to work. Honor in times past and how it is viewed today is based on the societal perception of who you are as a person. Where modern society is comprised of contracts, overseers, judges, law-makers, politicians and others in positions of authority, this automatically creates a need for justice. For without a standard of justice to accompany a system of honor then no person can feel enabled to think that the bargain or contract will be held to fulfillment. For without a system of justice, honor is merely a tool of those that wish to use it to control those lower than themselves.
Honor is something that can not be used as a commodity, it is a part of a person’s character, it has no monetary value, but can worth more than life. Honor is the perception of who you are by your peers, and in such is at stake in all situations whether in action or in words. In the past, honor was the manner of being that we now describe as having integrity. “An honorable person avoids deception whenever possible, treats others with respect and sticks to their beliefs no matter how others think or act.” Honor should determine the hierarchy of an individual while revealing his loyalty and true intentions.
In no way can justice and honor be divided or separated from one another. Within the confines of our modern world, humans are forced to co-exist next to one another. Therefore without a form of honor and justice, the society of humans would degrade to a point of absolute degradation. Consequences are the repercussions of actions. For without action, man is nothing. Even by simply existing, man is in action. The repercussions of existence influence all of society whether positively or negatively, this can not be avoided.
While honor is essential to living a good life, one of honesty, courtesy, and positive reputation, the morals and principles of any action are not contained within the guise of honor. A code of honor is a basis for which a life is to be led, not a life based on faulty ideals of honor. Within the modern times, honor is being disregarded and shunned in overwhelming numbers. Modern politics is a prime example of the lack of moral and ethical behavior, a place where corruption and selfishness overwhelm those with superior qualities.
Top political officials now set down doctrine with the “authority” of a tyrant. Judges make laws rather than interpret them, officials set policy without the use of proper channels, lawyers fight to undermine justice, and so on, and there is no end to the corruption that has befallen our nation and our world.
“We should seek peace, and if we cannot attain it, to use the full force of war”. Directly building off of this mandate to seek peace is the second thought that we should lay down our rights of nature and form social contracts, but only if others are able and willing to do so as well. From this comes the concept of the contract, in which men can transfer their rights of nature between each other and that which forms the basis of moral obligation. With the enactment of these, the full use of an individual’s right, an individual will trade a piece of their right in order to promote co-existence between one another, even these two are not enough to keep human kind from betraying one another. Through betrayal and subterfuge are from which seeds of corruption are laid. For without the laws that justice is founded upon, no justice can exist. The inherent justice that is seen throughout nature can only exist in nature, where nature is kept in concert by the balance’s of power that are inherent to the said structure. For without the said structure, no contracts can exist for no balance is found. For without balance, the nature of man is forthcoming and in its corrupted and fallible form, no justice can exist. When man believes himself to be the final judge of what is right and wrong, only his view can exist for himself because he is the final judge of what he believes. When only a single point of view is taken the logic that can be applied can only be singular and therefore circular. But when a second point of reference is added then the point of logic is extended to that of linear logic and therefore encompassing. The nature of circular verses linear is that of faith verses verifiable fact. In a form of circular, a point of faith must be found in order to create a foundation. In the form of linear logic, verifiable fact must be used in order to form the nature of understanding and therefore creating a form of an “encompassing nature.” Therefore a form of control must be implemented in a fact based environment.
There needs to be another layer of control. This is where the final view comes into fully forming the concepts of justice. The third view simply is, “men need to perform their valid contracts”, which becomes a definition of justice. From this, injustice is defined as not performing your valid contracts. As can be seen by this, with one view building off of another, it is quite clear that putting great effort into creating a full representation of the world in order to support a modern political doctrine. Thus, in order to understand the reasoning for this concept of justice, we may elaborate on how the views of nature are rules that every human being should follow in order to give them the best chance of living well as well as investigating the full requirements of justice and the claim that there is neither injustice nor justice in a state of nature.
For civil society to have come from this state of nature, where there is a constant war of all against all, there must have been some sort of catalyst that helped guide humans away from there anarchistic lifestyles to where codependence and interpersonal development were necessary. The catalyst, taking the form of nature and its laws is what we find as our governing system of accountability. From this it is apparent that honor and justice need to be a general rule that can be discovered simply through reason. Rules like this propagate human self-preservation and frown upon acts that are destructive towards humanity. There is one great difference between this kind of natural law and a civil law though, and it is that civil laws need to be written down and advertised while a natural law can be realized solely by the innate powers that spring forth from our reason. It is then that we find ourselves, a sheep among wolves, a citizen within the confines of a government that is unable to change and even more so unwilling to. They do not tend to be of the form, do onto others, which you would do upon yourself, embracing common morality and driving towards creating harmony between people. In fact the opposite is true within this time and age, politicians use the law of the land to barricade and entrap its peoples for the benefit of the few. In this, should these laws tend to be of the kind that every man should follow? Are they naturally obvious, and would following them reliably leads towards mans greatest desire, the desire to live and live well? Or would the inevitable be that man is trapped in a downward spiral, headed for total degradation? But without these laws, we all would have to withstand the horrors of the state of nature, in which fear reigns supreme. Is this not the world we live in, where people starve to death where some are fat with the luxuries of life. But within these laws that should be followed, life can be preserved and peace can be approached, but only through total complacency of the populace.
From these laws, spring the concepts of justice, but when they are turned against the people that they were meant to protect then there can be no justice, no honor, only the constant pursuit of that which is innate, power, lust, control. Justice is defined by keeping your contracts, or more simply, keeping your promises. Obviously, such a narrow basis for such a complex concept has certain requirements that focus the concept of contracts into a valid system of justice. Without contracts, there could be no justice because the covenant is justice’s root itself. One of the first requirements of the contract is that there can be no contract if there is reasonable cause for either side of the agreement to believe the other party will not hold up their end of the bargain, for if there was, the contract would be automatically void and the basis of justice would be removed.
Another major requirement is that there is some level of accountability above to oversee the contracts and dispense punishments if they are not fulfilled. Without some fear of punishment, it would be impossible to contain man’s tendency towards betrayal, which is inherent in his ultimate drive towards living a life that is of a fulfilling nature. It is mans constant struggle to abandon his lust for power and domination and step back and try and accomplish actions that benefit all. Along with this, there are multiple other requirements for the law of justice. It is impossible for anyone to give up their right to defend their life. This portion can never be contracted due to the belief in the egotism of humankind. Beyond this, contracts made with those that cannot understand speech is invalid, as are covenants made between man and God. After all this, once a valid covenant is made between individuals who do not have reasonable cause to believe that the other is plotting against them, there are only two ways to be freed of the covenant; either by performing or being forgiven. Finally, the moral shield that is provided by the covenant between the people and their better is not extended to people who are not included in the contract.
From this, it can be seen why there can be no justice when corruption is in the guise of control. When within a state or political arena, where the inhabitants live in constant fear of each other, no covenants can be made. This is due to the fact that any covenant is void if reasonable doubt exists that the other party will not fulfill their end of the deal. When without justice and honor, political means become the constant and the moral and ethnical sit sideline in stasis, waiting to have the brave stand for them. Since there is always reasonable doubt in a state of politics, no contract can be formed and the seeds of justice can not be planted. Also, within a state of nature, are men are all equal in power and ability, thus making the creation of a sovereign, or a person with power to force sanctions on people’s actions and enforce covenants, impossible. Without a better to threaten people with punishments, no contract could ever be made without reasonable doubt. Also, whenever in the state of political unrest, every person has the right to do and take anything that serves their desires because no covenant has ever been made. Thus, again, no action can be made unjust in a state of current politics.

The concept of justice and honor, made by culminating smaller conclusions and actions together into a much broader conclusion or results, allows for the modern society to discard them as unessential or unnecessary. Specifically stated, that when presented with other pathways, men will always chose the path that allows them to live and live well and that men will always seek power, forsaking all other things. Only can honor stem the flow to degradation. These rules still hold in the presence of a contract or a better, it seems quite difficult to consider acting out of pure selfishness as ever being ethical. While it is obviously a grave injustice, some views of justice cannot see it as so because the people enchaining the populace are just working towards satisfying their desire for power and are trying to live and live well, even if it is through the suffering of others. This is because, according to the definition of justice, an unjust act is only one that breaks a contract between two or more people. The general population is all from outside of the contract of the society and thus their suffering is not unjust. This huge oversight by some can also be applied to multiple other areas to show gaps in general societal beliefs. While, in all these cases, the person being harmed had not entered a specific covenant with the betters of the land and so were not required to enter into a contract with them. Even though some might respond that there may be an implicit contract that applies to all life, which allows for recognition of injustice to be seen outside of just the people within a group. But as those in control see this as an undermining of their rule, then this can not be allowed.
In closing, only through the works of those who would see the just and honorable rise and the unjust and dishonorable fall can we ever start to rebuild that which has been given to us. Life is precious, so we as mortal creatures should not squander which has been given to us in petty squabbles of greed in the pursuit of power. Love your neighbor as yourself, do unto others that you would have them do unto you.

[Komissar]

Incredibly written.
I am a simple man, so let me surmise.
>A man inherently knows the difference between right and wrong. It doesn't take rule or law.
>A mans actions, not words, demonstrate his honor.
>Rules and laws cannot make men act honorably.
I know I missed a few more points.