Your opinions of honor?

[k1injuries]

First of all, does anyone care to give their definitions of honor?

What I think what is NOT being honorable, in a nut shell, is:

treachery, back-stabbing, deceit, trickery, lacking heart, giving up, b****ing, being an anal a-hole(i just wanted to toss this one in), ratting out, running away, lacking valor/balls, acting only in self-interest, manipulating, jealousy/envy, hypocrisy, not sticking to your beliefs (being swayed by bribes or torture), not speaking one's mind, talking behind one's back, not fighting 1 on 1 (for example, 20 on 1...), taking cheapshots, taking advantage of someone, hiding one's motives, ulterior motives, sabotaging another for personal gain, allowing others to influence your thought blindly (because getting advice isn't wrong, following what others say to fit in or something is, not earning things by themselves, basically peer pressure), brown nosing, having no humility, being judgemental, thinking you're the supreme wisest superior blah blah, being someone's b****, and some more probably that I can't recall right now.

That's one helluva nut. Of course, I could be wrong though, about honor. I think I stuck in some self-respect and integrity definitions in there which made it so big. Also the definition has parts that are applied only to the battlefield...I think most can be applied to life today.

For me, honor goes hand-in-hand with self-respect and integrity. Why? Because I think a person has to have a strong sense of self-respect before he/she can actually stick to a code of honor, otherwise it will become a kind of the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak thing.
Personally, I think honor is almost nonexistant nowadays, simply because treachery, deciet, and guile (though it doesn't have to be a combination of the three... just one is enough) can get a person much farther, material and status wise, though inside he knows he's the trashiest of trash. Of course they'll put a blind eye to it, or think that everyone else does the same too so it's okay. It's really hard to adhere to a code of honor because those who don't (with mindsets like... so you think I'm dishonorable?.. at least I'm 'winning.') will just take advantage of you, though I still try. Is keeping honor a lost cause or archaic?

With honor pertaining to the battle-field... I think that it's losing more and more honor as the years go on...
In the American Revolution, the British thought the Americans were dishonorable and cheap because of their guerilla-esque tactics as opposed to fighting in the open. But it was America who won right?

Similarly, in the recent Iraq war, the Americans thought that the Iraqi troops were cheap because they pretended to surrender and then fired at unsuspecting approaching American GIs. But the Iraqis were able to kill more soldiers this way then by fighting it out, mano to mano. So how do you define whats honorable in war now? Obviously now it's considered foolhardy to fight face to face with all the guns on the table.

That's the biggest dilemma to me, honor on the battlefield. People say live to fight another day. I don't know though... However I'd rather die early with honor, then live without it. Of course this could be just hot air that I'm blowing. I've never been in a situation where I'd have to choose between honor and survival. I wouldn't forfeit other people's lives for honor, however, unless they wanted to go down fighting too, if I were a military officer. I'd have to have their consent before going out with a bang if I were in a no escape outnumbered scenario.

Am I being an idealist to stick to honor? If so then hell, I'll be an idealist

So what do you guys think of honor? Is it a lost cause? Will you sacrifice honor for survival? Where do you feel honor crosses over the threshold into foolhardiness (for me, there is no such thing as being foolhardy... just really honorable http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif ) ? Hopefully this topic prompts a decent conversation/debate.

If you're asking, so what does MTW and STW have to do with this topic?, the answer is chivalry and bushido. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

By the way, these are just my opinions and stuff, I could be wrong since I'm only 16 in highschool. I understand that my range of perspective (or however you say it) is very small.

[k1injuries]

Sorry for double posting but seeing as how I am unable to edit the previous post, I'd like to apologize for its massive grammar errors and occasional awkwardnesses. I forgot to proof-read it.

Also, is it against the forum rules to write profane words, and if it is, is partial censorship undermining that rule? (ie, sh*t)

[Lord Wolfric]

The topic of honor on the battlefield is an iffy one; in terms of living life in general or during peace, that's one thing; but engaging an enemy who seeks your death is something else entirely.

I believe strongly in personal integrity; i.e., dealing with others in an honest and truthful manner. This goes double for loved ones and those who matter to you. It's not a matter of following a religion or enforced morality, it's about being smart. If your word is worth nothing, then no one can trust you and in the end you will die alone and virtually unmourned. So it's ultimately in your own best interest to have integrity. Tony Montana once said, All I have in this world is my balls... and my word.

In war the rules begin to change. I agree that over time the concept of honor is now an empty word when it comes to the battlefield. But it was truly inevitable. Imagine the swordsman masters of old being mowed down in the fields of war when the gun replaced the sword as the primary weapon of choice. Cowards Fight like a man Mastering the art of swordsmanship became obsolete. Now any chump with a rifle could bring down the greatest swordsman without even looking him in the eye. But soon it became clear that the old ways would not lead to victory. The smart men realized this and war evolved to revolve around the gun.

Later, when the early American colonists clashed with the Native Americans, they found their straightforward, out-in-the-open tactics left them easy targets for the Natives' guerilla-style warfare. Cowards Fight like a man Again, the old tradition of following rules of classic honor was running up the casualty numbers. The Americans did the smart thing and adapted.

Now warfare has reached a new level of ruthlessness and dirty tricks. The planes that brought down the World Trade Center brought the age of war back to its primevial roots. Cowards Fight like a man

So the question becomes, what is more important, fighting with honor, or defeating your enemy? Or alternatively, what's the difference between fighting with honor and living with honor? We all want to believe ourselves honorable; no doubt Saddam Hussein himself believes himself to be an honorable man. Very few among us (humanity) believe themselves to be evil, shady, lecherous, or dishonorable; it's all a matter of perspective. In the end, the judgement of history is written by the victor.

BTW - I just woke up, so if that made no sense kindly bear with me. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Morcini]

Honor is when you rise to the occasion and become all that you can be. When in the face of your foes, when all hope fails, when you cannot turn back, you stand steadfast. Honor is for those who understand the meaning of life.
It is just like your last line in MTW. You know the battle may be over, all your other lines are fleeing. Now you put your trust into the last line.

Being un-honorable...I have a few words...mommas boy, coward, foolish, immature. Thats basically it. Either your ready for whatever the world throws at you, or you hide in a box.

I think the few which best embraced honor were the Samurai and the Knights.

[k1injuries]

Lord Wolfric, if I weren't so prideful I would quit school and become your disciple. haha http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif j/k

Thanks for humbling me, though.


Quote[/b] ]what is more important, fighting with honor, or defeating your enemy?

I couldn't quite put my finger on the question I wanted to ask but you brought the whole package.

[Lord Wolfric]

Quote[/b] (k1injuries @ Jan. 07 2004,23:19)]Lord Wolfric, if I weren't so prideful I would quit school and become your disciple. haha http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif j/k
Ah, but remember: healthy pride is a virtue, so long as it does not become foolish arrogance. Know the difference, reap the rewards.

[Papewaio]

Honour is keeping ones word.

A lot of people and governments make statements about how they do things, then the moment a stressful situation occurs they go and do something else.

Of course its easier to live in honour if your code is easy... however most people find it hard in life if they say 'Sure if the chips are down I would make Gah of you all for the last bag of rice'.

[Math Mathonwy]

my definition of honor is:
that almost every person has their own code of honor.

also i think experiences shape your idea of honor, like if someone did something to you, you may resolve to nver do that to anyone. my code of honor is centered around loyalty, standing up for wut i believe in, being brave, not gossiping, not letting life get me down and (on the less mature side) doing unto others as they do unto me. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pissed.gif

P.S. i believe in integrety to a degree, im completely truthful, unless someone like my parents r gonna catch me doing something they dont want me to do, or i didnt do my h/w and my teacher might give me a extra day if i tell her i just forgot it, and make a good show of rummaging in my backpack. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif

[ichi]

Honor implies a sense of consciousness of personal dignity; honor is in a sense one's name. A good name, one's reputation The immortal part of one's self, honor is the opposite of shame.

To do what you think is right, regardless of the cost to you personally. There is a bit of fairness and honesty, compassion and sympathy, loyalty and commitment, strength and courage in honor. Honor is extremely gentle.

I see too much that is not honorable. Too much blame, too much greed, too much exploitation. From little things, like some of the bragging and taunting that goes on in the MP game, the way people drive, to the big things like Enron scandals.

Honor, like love, friendship, and humor, is one of the truly important things that seems to becoming lost.

Nice thread.

ichi

[Sun Tzui]

Quote[/b] ]Honor, like love, friendship, and humor, is one of the truly important things that seems to becoming lost.
Unfortunate but true http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif

If Seppuko (or hara-kiri as others calle it) was a part of our culture (and had yet to be lost), we would see lots of ppl slicing themselves

[frogbeastegg]

Honour is doing what you know must be done regardless of how easy or difficult it may be.
Honour is standing by those who have won your trust and respect and staying there until the end no matter what.
Honour is being true to your word always.
Honour is not lying unless the truth would cause a lot of hurt.
Honour is saying what you believe, not what others want to hear.
Honour is being gracious in both victory and defeat, not crushing the weak or complaining when you lose fairly.
Honour is helping those who need your help, for no other reason than they need help.
Honour is deciding to break with your world and stand your ground because you know your world is doing something wrong.
Honour is recognising your moral code and sticking to it even in the darkest times.
Honour is doing all of the above knowing that your world condems you as a fool for being different and that you are making your life harder than it has to be, and then being glad you are a 'fool'.

[Ja'chyra]

In life we all have a code, beliefs, principles call it what you will. Honour comes when you live by that code.

Therefore what is honourable to one will not be to another as not everyones beliefs are the same for example one person would argue that sending 100 people to defend, possibly die defending 1 is honourable whereas another would say that saving the 100 and sacrificing the one is.

Understanding this is part of the challenge http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif maybe someday I'll understand it myself http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

Just my tuppence worth. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif Be good http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[The_Emperor]

Quote[/b] (ichi @ Jan. 08 2004,06:15)]Honor, like love, friendship, and humor, is one of the truly important things that seems to becoming lost.
A great statement from the honourable Ichi... Honour is rare, but it has always been rare throughout history.


Quote[/b] ]Honour is doing what you know must be done regardless of how easy or difficult it may be.
Honour is standing by those who have won your trust and respect and staying there until the end no matter what.
Honour is being true to your word always.
Honour is not lying unless the truth would cause a lot of hurt.
Honour is saying what you believe, not what others want to hear.
Honour is being gracious in both victory and defeat, not crushing the weak or complaining when you lose fairly.
Honour is helping those who need your help, for no other reason than they need help.
Honour is deciding to break with your world and stand your ground because you know your world is doing something wrong.
Honour is recognising your moral code and sticking to it even in the darkest times.
Honour is doing all of the above knowing that your world condems you as a fool for being different and that you are making your life harder than it has to be, and then being glad you are a 'fool'.


There we have it, Froggy's complete guide to honour http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

That is a Very nice post Frogbeastegg http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Great topic, k1injuries

The answers have already been revealed, by the honourable responses of Lord Wolfric, ichi and frogbeastegg... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

[Dhepee]

Honor is all too rare. For too many people life is about winning and getting ahead regardless of others. There are no victories without honor and there is no success without honor. Honor is the struggle to persevere with integrity. It is better to concede defeat honorably than to win dishonorably. I would far rather be an honorable failure than a dishonorable success. My father taught me that when you leave this world you take only two things with you, your integrity and your hard work. For me integrity and honor go hand in hand. If you sacrifice one then you sacrifice the other. Honor is displaying integrity in all of your actions. In the end honor is its own reward and the penalty for dishonor is self-loathing and guilt; it may only be an internal one but you build your own prison.

I only play one sport, fencing. I have played many others, track, football, and baseball, but fencing is the only sport where the first lesson was honor instead of winning is everything. The first thing that the coaches taught was the lessons of honor and respect: before a lesson salute the instructor, before a bout salute your opponent, after a bout shake hands with your opponent, and most importantly that it is better to concede a point that you might not have fairly gained than it is to win the bout on a lie.

Integrity pays off in the long term. If you keep points that were not fairly won you won't get better as a fencer and in a competition the judges will see what maybe a practice partner didn't and you will not be able to make as many fair hits as you have not practiced making them, rather you have practiced claiming what is not yours or as my coach put it, In the days of duelling you couldn't claim an unfair point because you were dead, learn to fence not to lie.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Very wise words, Dhepee http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif



Quote[/b] ] In the days of duelling you couldn't claim an unfair point because you were dead, learn to fence not to lie.
As for your coach, nobody could be more expressive than this. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Teutonic Knight]

Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ Jan. 08 2004,08:32)]Great topic, k1injuries

The answers have already been revealed, by the honourable responses of Lord Wolfric, ichi and frogbeastegg... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif
I'll second that, very good post indeed k1injuries

[Ludens]

The first sentence of Frogbeastegg's post basically summarizes the entire point of honour.

Quote[/b] ]Honour is doing what you know must be done regardless of how easy or difficult it may be
Honour is doing what is right, regardless of the consequences for yourself.

So, temptation is the enemy of honour, because temptation is the easy way. That makes honour a rare commodity in this society, that revolves around satisfying needs (the so-called consumption society). I do not agree with people who say that there was more honour in the past. The knights or samurai or any group with an intricate honour code were just as great bastards as the rest of humanity, sometimes even worse. Honour has always been the possesion of a small group of individuals. These were people with enough willpower and self-control to resist temptation. They made excellent judges and where very respected.

The problem with honour is that living with it only becomes (relativily) easy if people recognize it, if they accept you will not be bribed, that you will choose the right way and not the easy way. So why would you be honourable? If they do not recognize it, why follow it? Honour or no honour, they'll kick you to the gutter.

The answer to that is: because of honour. If you are honourable because of the consequences for yourself, you are not honourable at all
Honour is ignoring the consequences for yourself.

Can I be honourable? I do not know. I still have not decided whether I prefer an utilitarian morality, which revolves around the consequences of your actions for others AND yourself, or a deontologic moral, which revolves around doing the right thing (Honour, so to speak. But I do not study philosophy, so I do not know if my connection between deontological morality and honour is correct.) I still try to combine the two systems. Until I have found out which I prefer, I do not know how I can be honourable.

Ignoring the consequences for yourself is very hard. It happens automatically, we have been trained to do that by millions of years of evolution and thousands of years of civilication. Especially the part in which honour is recognized is difficult for me. I want to be honourable, but I also want to be recognized as being honourable. That is honour for the consequences which is no honour at all. So, I do not know if I can be honourable, but I certainly am not honourable, now.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif Excellent post, Ludens http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif

Bravo http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

[Lord Rom]

Quote[/b] ]Honour is doing what is right, regardless of the consequences for yourself.


Yes, very good. Honor in war...my thought would be to fight the enemy without attacking women, children, old folks. That to me would bring dishonor.

[Ludens]

Quote[/b] (Lord Rom @ Jan. 08 2004,21:46)]Yes, very good. Honor in war...my thought would be to fight the enemy without attacking women, children, old folks. That to me would bring dishonor.
Honour in war would be
-Not torturing prisoners to gain information
-No killing of prisoners, regardless of how dangerous they might later be
-Giving aid to your wounded as well the prisoners and the enemies
-As you said, only killing soldiers who are fighting, no civilians or men who have surendered. Along the same lines, you shouldn't use disguised soldiers yourself, and you shouldn't surrender and then open fire again.
-Usage of spies is open for debate. They are dishounorable men, and as such should not be used. But it could be classified as a neccesary evil. Since honour is doing what must be done, a honourable general should use spies, but only if he thinks them absolutely neccesary. But, again, is questionable if they are really neccesary.

I think it would be possible to be a honourable general, by treating you enemy as if they were your own men, who just happened to be on the other side. Off course, provided you treat your own men has humans too. But this kind of everybody-is-equal-stance does take out the fanatism of your men. And fanatism is a powerful tool.

I think if just come up with something that I had forgotten in my last post. Humanity. It is important that you treat every one as equals (not being influenced by who they are, or at least, what the consequences of that will be for yourself. But this is getting trickier than I expected). Treat opponent and friends alike: As humans. That is humanity. Perhaps that is honour?

[The_Emperor]

Quote[/b] (Ludens @ Jan. 08 2004,21:24)]Honour in war would be
-Not torturing prisoners to gain information
-No killing of prisoners, regardless of how dangerous they might later be
-Giving aid to your wounded as well the prisoners and the enemies
-As you said, only killing soldiers who are fighting, no civilians or men who have surendered. Along the same lines, you shouldn't use disguised soldiers yourself, and you shouldn't surrender and then open fire again.
I guess that means that we are terribly dishonourable when we play MTW and feel a World Domination comming on...

All those Prisoners slain, that Butcher Vice...

(Emperor Goes off to commit Seppuko)

Has anyone ever won a campaign by behaving Honourably and not killing Prisoners?

[Lord Wolfric]

Quote[/b] (Ludens @ Jan. 08 2004,15:24)]-Usage of spies is open for debate. They are dishounorable men, and as such should not be used. But it could be classified as a neccesary evil. Since honour is doing what must be done, a honourable general should use spies, but only if he thinks them absolutely neccesary. But, again, is questionable if they are really neccesary.
Ludens-

With due respect, I must strongly disagree with your assessment of spies. If warriors and weapons are the heart and blood of warfare, intelligence collection is the lungs and respiratory system. All the successful generals and leaders of history understood the importance of intelligence and acted accordingly. A spy risks far more than death day by day for his country and can never truly be recognized for it. He truly serves in silence.

A great deal of today's intelligence collection is accomplished through technological means, but there is no substitute for viable human intelligence... which can only be collected the old-fashioned way. It is an art and science that predates the gun and maybe even the sword itself. They deal with scum and villiany on a daily basis and no doubt some may eventually become villians themselves. But they do what must be done, a prime example of service before self.

In MTW terms, early in the game I always try to get agents - be they emissaries, priests, spies or inquisitors - into all the major provinces until I can train a larger intelligence force. My goal is always to have an agent in each and every province on the map. At any given moment, I want to know where all my opponents are, who they are, what their weaknesses and strenths are, their troop numbers, type and loyalty, where they get most of their income, where they train their best troops, their territorial religion... I could go on. I want no portion of the map out of my sight.

You must know your enemy better than he knows himself. That's a fundamental principle of warfare. And intelligence is only achieved through espionage. It's not a necessary evil... it's simply necessary.

[Lord Wolfric]

Quote[/b] (The_Emperor @ Jan. 08 2004,15:32)]Has anyone ever won a campaign by behaving Honourably and not killing Prisoners?
Nope I had to be a dirty rat-bastard like everyone else. Especially when dealing with the Pope lol

When you fight the devil, be a devil yourself Or you can't win YOU STUPID BOY YOU'RE BETTER OF DEAD, IDIOT, DO YOU HEAR ME?? --Dakuan, Ninja Scroll

[PseRamesses]

Honor on the battlefield is to me:

1. As few casualities, on both sides, as possible. Take prisoners and outmanuevre your opponent so that he realizes that fighting is futile.
2. If you must kill your foe do so with the utmost swiftness that your intellect can muster and don´t forget to look him in the eye while doing it.
3. Never, and I do mean never, run him down or stab him in the back. When he turns tails, let him run. Maybee he´ll be back to fight another day, but, that´s another day.

Honor in life is something completely differnt but I think you guys have already covered that part of the topic with previous posts.

[chris]

Killing the enemy honorably. If my gameing in MTW reflects this, I would have none, lol. When you let them go, just so they can come back and kill you again, I would not let them go. Run them down if thats what it takes. Prisoners? I would take them, and treat them fair. The enemy, as well as my men, and I, should be there ready to fight, and ready to die.

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

In MTW, honor is a cheap virtue; when dealing with virtual entity it is easy to be honorable and let them go or kill them; after all this has no real consequence and is not a real moral dillema, either in SP or MP.

In real life, I got a lot, an awful, lot of mixed feeling regarding honor.
Sometimes good purposes require gruesome acts. Resistance movements in Europe during WW2 are good examples; they had to be ruthless, they had to kill civilian traitors (those cooperating with Nazis), they had to kill prisonners (can't keep prisoner when underground). They could not afford to fight according to the rules, like gentlemen.
It was honorable to oppose the nazis, but to be honest, many of the acts from Resistance movements were not honorable on a day to day basis.
See 'L'armee des ombres'.

There is also an intersting discussion about honor in 'le Zero et l'infini' from A. Koestler between a communist and a tsarist (in the military IIRC), both in jail.... And I can't stand with the conception of honor the tsarist has; to live and die for your conviction... To be true to your word... see all above posts http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Honor has a part of vanity and pride; if you have low self esteem, honour is unlikely to matter much.
If you have a lot of self esteem and a high opinion of yourself, then to be honorable is the easy way, which requires rather less self questionning (not sure it's good English; I mean to be honorable imply you don't question your morale code; you just follow it).
At some point being honorable might mean you fear more for your status or image (either in the public eye or to your self esteem) than for real consequences of dishonorable behavior.
I'll join the communist (in Koestler book http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif ); when you have a morale code and high morale standing, it requires courage to forget it, to act without honor and do what is necessary without vanity.

And, yes, honor is becoming lost; good riddance. Grow up, and become reasonable and pragmatic. Humanity might be better off without chivalry. Honourable times were not the happiest.

Louis,

[Dillinger]

Honor in life is following through, being reliable, to take action on your personal ideology, to not steal from the beggar, and to work for your goal.

Honor on the battlefield is non-existant. Civilized nations do what we do because we've lulled ourselves into believing that our enemy will 'follow our lead.' Of course, that is on the battlefield. Prisoners should be treated fairly, and justly. They should not be abused or tortured.

[johnnybrigante]

Quote[/b] (Lord Wolfric @ Jan. 08 2004,21:08)]A spy risks far more than death day by day for his country and can never truly be recognized for it. He truly serves in silence.
...what brings us to the concept of honor as doing what is right, regardless of the consequences for yourself, as ludens said. based on that, i truly didn't understand his position regarding spies in a war....

as for me, i believe that everyday honor is about trust. trust on yourself and your beliefs, and inspiring trust on others - naturally. in a war? you'll have different people with different concepts about honor - some of these differences being personal, some being part of a regional/national/religious culture. add that to the fact that many of those involved in a war are doing so for duty, not for belief (in whatever is involved). honor in a war? i can't define it - i don't even know if it is possible to define it.

[k1injuries]

Excellent responses everyone

Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe, your arguement that honor could be and has been used for personal gain (improved public image and such) has its merits. I can't argue against it since people do use honor dishonorably, which sucks. What I'm for is being sincerely and genuinely honorable, not being honorable just for public image. Besides, rarely do people recognize honor when they see it today. I think you'd have to fully explain your actions and how its honorable for others to understand that you're being honorable. Anyways, that's a dead giveaway that someone's being honorable only for their public image. I don't give a rat's behind what people think of me, I'll still be as honorable as I can till the end of time. I don't explain my actions when I do em.

Now I'm going to use an example from the Bible. No, I'm not trying to preach Christianity or anything like that, I'm just using this as an example. In the Bible Jesus taught that when you pray you shouldn't act like the people who worship loudly and ostentatiously, exclaiming how humble and blah blah they are, in synogagues for the sole purpose of public image. Instead, you should pray quietly in your own room where no one sees you. Basically to not do things for public images. That's how I feel honor should be employed.

Here's a thought. Charities and community service exist because people really want to help others. But some people only do charities and community service to heighten their public image. Does that mean generosity should become obsolete and forgotten because some utilize it the wrong way?

Also Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe, when you say Grow up, and become reasonable and pragmatic. Humanity might be better off without chivalry. Honourable times were not the happiest., I agree, people would be happier in terms of material things and self-interest. They'd be happier after taking advantage of and infringing on others. Sorry if that's not what you meant, because that's how I interpreted it. It's hard for me to see how life without honor is better. Could you clarify?

On the part of being happy, I remember reading an article about a census which gauged the happiness level of today. The relative happiness level has been the same since 80 years ago when the first census of its series began. I don't recall the value of the happiness level but I do remember one fact on the census: That the majority of the census takers would be happier if their income was doubled, even with those who had incomes well above $100,000 US. Have any of you seen Citizen Kane? I don't think people will ever be satisfied if they don't appreciate what they have already. Once they succeed in achieving their material goals, they'll set another higher and higher and higher until they realize that they're unhappy.

[ichi]

Louis, for such an honorable guy you confound and amaze me

To be honorable requires one to look deeply into themselves, to find what is truly important. I know that I prefer to live amongst honorable people. I prefer more to expect honor and be disappointed in its absence than to constantly be prepared for my fellows to be dishonorable.

To choose a course of honor is both pragmatic and reasonable. I have always greatly benefitted from those times that I acted with honor, and suffered in unforeseen ways when i didn't.

As the fervor of Christianity led to the Crusades and Inquisition, and the code of Bushido was warped to allow the war crimes of WWII, the pursuit of honor can be made vain and shallow. Anything can be perverted.

To search deeply within and then do the right thing, regardless of consequences, for the benefit of others. Surely this leads to happier times.

I have gained much respect for you over the last year, both as a fighter and a person. I hope that the Tsarist and Communist remained friends in the book.

ichi

[Ludens]

Quote[/b] (johnnybrigante @ Jan. 09 2004,05:48)]
Quote[/b] (Lord Wolfric @ Jan. 08 2004,21:08)]A spy risks far more than death day by day for his country and can never truly be recognized for it. He truly serves in silence.
...what brings us to the concept of honor as doing what is right, regardless of the consequences for yourself, as ludens said. based on that, i truly didn't understand his position regarding spies in a war....
Lord Wolfric and johnnybrigante,
You must have a very romaticized view of spies. Spies are men of weak principles, prepared to sell what they have sworn never to give away. They will betray their masters and lie to cover it up. If this is your idea of honour, then what is your idea of dishounour? This is not James Bond
If I were an honourable ruler I wouldn't want such people in my land. I wouldn't want them at all And I certainly wouldn't want to reward them for their dishonour. But spies can be neccessary, and to be honourable is to do what must be done.

In times of war, the issue of honour becomes very complicated. Honour about doing the right thing, but what is the right thing? To stand by your oath and slaughter your master's enemies? Or to break it to ensure a happier outcome? I suppose this is why the honour code's of warrior castes (knights, samurai) were ineffective. It just couldn't be brought in one line with the practice of war. This is, I assume, why Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe says that honourable times were not the most happy times. Honour codes, which value loyality hughely, tend to arise in warrior cultures, but they are very difficult to keep to in times of war.


Quote[/b] ]Honor has a part of vanity and pride; if you have low self esteem, honour is unlikely to matter much.
If you have a lot of self esteem and a high opinion of yourself, then to be honorable is the easy way, which requires rather less self questionning (not sure it's good English; I mean to be honorable imply you don't question your morale code; you just follow it).
At some point being honorable might mean you fear more for your status or image (either in the public eye or to your self esteem) than for real consequences of dishonorable behavior.
Very true, that is what I meant when I wrote I myself was not honourable. I also desire the appearance of being honourable, not just being honourable myself. But honourable behavoir is always about ignoring the consequences for yourself only.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]To be honorable requires one to look deeply into themselves, to find what is truly important. I know that I prefer to live amongst honorable people. I prefer more to expect honor and be disappointed in its absence than to constantly be prepared for my fellows to be dishonorable.

To choose a course of honor is both pragmatic and reasonable. I have always greatly benefitted from those times that I acted with honor, and suffered in unforeseen ways when i didn't.

As the fervor of Christianity led to the Crusades and Inquisition, and the code of Bushido was warped to allow the war crimes of WWII, the pursuit of honor can be made vain and shallow. Anything can be perverted.

To search deeply within and then do the right thing, regardless of consequences, for the benefit of others. Surely this leads to happier times.

La Verité by Lord ichi... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Quote[/b] (ichi @ Jan. 09 2004,01:53)]Louis, for such an honorable guy you confound and amaze me

To be honorable requires one to look deeply into themselves, to find what is truly important. I know that I prefer to live amongst honorable people. I prefer more to expect honor and be disappointed in its absence than to constantly be prepared for my fellows to be dishonorable.

To choose a course of honor is both pragmatic and reasonable. I have always greatly benefitted from those times that I acted with honor, and suffered in unforeseen ways when i didn't.

As the fervor of Christianity led to the Crusades and Inquisition, and the code of Bushido was warped to allow the war crimes of WWII, the pursuit of honor can be made vain and shallow. Anything can be perverted.

To search deeply within and then do the right thing, regardless of consequences, for the benefit of others. Surely this leads to happier times.

I have gained much respect for you over the last year, both as a fighter and a person. I hope that the Tsarist and Communist remained friends in the book.

ichi
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif Ichi,

Both the tsarist and the communist are in jail in Communist Russia (the communist for being a communist of the wrong kind).

IIRC, the tsarist ends up being shot... The communist humiliates himself willingly because he thinks that it is what history (in a communist sense) require from him... I don't remember how he ends up... Possibly shot too. Interesting book.
The Tsarist has a never-surrender attitude... the Communist sacrifice his honour to the greater good, and cooperate with his judges even if the trial is a joke. So basically he participated in a lie to humiliate himself to set an example in history.
Or so I remember.
Well... I read it 10 years ago...

Ichi, I have a lot of self esteem and vanity. And fortunately so far I have never been in a situation when I had to sacrifice what I know is right to do what needs to be done. No troubled times... I have not been tested really; so far being honorable or dishonorable has been without consequence and I sure hope it'll stay that way.
If troubled times arise, I hope I'll find the true courage to forsake my honour and act despite the smoke and mirrors of vanity and morale code to do what the situation requires; and if the situation requires dishonorable acts, then so be it.

But, hopefully, I'll never have to go throught anything like that...

Louis,

[Nelson]

An honorable man need not be flawless but he must remain steadfast in the pursuit of that which is ethical, honest and just.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]An honorable man need not be flawless but he must remain steadfast in the pursuit of that which is ethical, honest and just.
Very well put in very few words... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Lord Wolfric]

Quote[/b] (Ludens @ Jan. 09 2004,04:33)]You must have a very romaticized view of spies. Spies are men of weak principles, prepared to sell what they have sworn never to give away. They will betray their masters and lie to cover it up. If this is your idea of honour, then what is your idea of dishounour? This is not James Bond
I think you're referring to paid informants, snitches, and the infamous double agent. You're on target with these individuals, but that's not who I'm talking about. I'm talking about government intelligence professionals... mainly in a modern context, but the profession of espionage dates back way before our time.

Members of the U.S. intelligence community take an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foriegn and domestic. They are carefully screened and subject to periodic background checks to ensure their trustworthiness. This is to avoid instances such as you mention, where a person in financial hardship gives in to temptation and sells secrets to foriegn entities, or feels screwed over by the government and shifts allegience in retaliation. Some slip through the cracks and end up in the news, but the rest truly believe in what they are doing and would never sell out their country.

There is no major world power that does not employ some form of intelligence collection. And I'd be willing to bet there is no significant foriegn embassy that has not been the subject of some form of clandestine intelligence operation. James Bond may be fantasy, but you'd better believe the fiction of Tom Clancy is only a short step from the kind of thing that happens in real life day by day and never makes the news.

[MadMad]

The Collins English Dictionary
Honour or U.S Honor n.
1. personal integrity; allegiance to moral principles.
2. a. fame or glory.
b. a person or thing that wins this for another:he is an honor to the school
3. great respect, regard, esteem, etc.

What I say when someone talks about 'Honour/Honor'
Honour cannot be measured nor weighed. It is something that should not be taken lightly.

[Ludens]

Lord Wolfric,

Apparently, you and I meant different things with spies. You meant the people who work for intelligence agencies. These men can indeed be honourable, and are very useful (not to say neccessary) to a ruler. They analyse and interpretate information for their country. This information can be optained in all kinds of ways. In the past, however, this was done by a betrayer or infiltrator. That was what I meant with spy. As I said, these are betrayers or people who lie for their living. This, I think you'll agree, is not honourable conduct.

Sometimes it is argued that this betraying and lying is justified by the cause, that it in fact is honourable. This kind of honour scares me.
It says that for the cause, everything may be done. This is the reasoning behind crusades, jihads, inquisitions and suicide attacks. It has been embraced by most if not all militant ideologies, like national socialism (Nazi's) and communism.
An important part of honour is humanity, but if you say that it is honourable to use all means against the enemy, you treat your opponents as if they are sub-human.