What is Honor?!!!

Any opinions??!


von Kleist’s The Duel.


Self esteem, confidence and assurance.

Honor is meriting respect from others. Honor, by definition, is only truly considered honor if it is given to you by someone else. In my humble opinion, I feel that there really is not such thing as “honoring one’s self”. You can give yourself honor…because, if you attempt to do so, you are essentialy doing little more than boasting to yourself.

Honor is distinct from self-bestowed boasting or respect since the honor of someone must orginate in another person. One person must feel that the the “honorable person” is genuine in some way to the point where giving that person respect is worthwhile.

To bestow true honor on another requires that the “bestow-er” is not doing it for any personal gain. The root of honor is gratitude. :wink:

Self esteem, happens only when respected by others.

Confidence, are supported by successful conducts, a conduct is successful only when others say so.

Assurance, needs an object as reference, honor is an example.

Honor is nothing special, nothing holly, only a romantic approch to satisfy.

honor is what you call a judge…

anything else is just puffery…


Honor is bullshit, man. It’s relativistic. Certain cultures consider it dishonorable not to be killed in battle, others consider it dishonorable to be in battle. Some consider it honorable to show mercy on your oppontents, others think it is honorable to be ruthless.

Honor is just the ruler by which cultures measure attractiveness, ergo, it’s just a ploy to get laid.

To me, honor is doing what you believe is right.

So, by your logic then, I should not give respect to the Police Officer who risked his life to save many others…or give any respect to the firefighters that die in order to rescue many others from an untimely death…or even think of respecting people who, for being paid very little, choose to literaly put themselves in the front line to win wars?

I agree that it is stupid for a culture to say, “It is honorable to commit suicide for the Emporer’s sake”. But mind you, this really is not true honor ---- rather, it is tradition.

Honor is the natural result of gratitude. And gratitude is extremely relatavistic. But does this make gratitude bad? :wink:

Adhering to a tradition for the tradition’s sake or because someone says it’s honorable is not really genuiely showing respect to anyone. Honor is not a blind act. Honoring out of duty is showing no one respect.

But, until you are doing more noble things than risking your lives to save others, you are by no means worthy of anyone’s respect. :wink:

In honoring, “respecting” in your own word, others who deserve it, you are defining your own moral identiy; also, you make the honorable in order to left expose the baddies. All part of securing the world to the place as you know it. Anyway, honor is a concept larger than merely your response to the hero, its also about how does the hero feel about his own actions.

To me honor is doing what you yourself believe is right, especially when there are negative personal consequences for doing so. Sure it’s subjective and relativistic, but that doesn’t make it less valid. Perhaps some do “the honorable thing” to get respect and admiration, but to me the highest point of honor is to do the thing you know is right even when you’d be better off doing something else.

Let’s forget about the question of “what is right” for now. Since doing what you think is right that has “bad personal consequences” is obviosly a tough choice, you’d want something to compensate your loss due to doing this “right” thing. What you get, is the romantic idea of honor. This can compensate enough, because this idea is widespread among others too. So in self-honoring, knowing that you’re not solo on this; and in being honored by your romantic partners, the compensation overweights the negative consequences. This is partly what I meant by “self assurance” - it’s a seek for support in the realm of romantic morality.

I don’t think you can really have a meaningful discussion of the concept of honor without looking at “what’s right.” The defintion of honor from my online dictionary: “Principled uprightness of character; personal integrity.”

“Meaningful”… “right”… “uprightness”… …

Isn’t philosophy supposed to be more “abstract” and less “fundamental”?


it’s real, it’s created.

You all deserve honor
without my even knowing why.

To not know why it’s earned, one could say is
sufficient evidence to revoke honor.

Is one who seeks honor from others deserving of honor?

Is honor reserved for those who have no desire for it?

Do we post in these forums for the exclusive purpose of selflessly
contributing to the body of philosophical truth and knowledge,
or is there not a component of our expression that seeks some form
of honor, respect from our philosophical peers, superiors, and those learning from our examples…

Or perhaps we honor ourselves with such expression.

We say, "HEY! I’ve got something to say! I know this, OK!?!

I deserve to honor my philosophy by making it honored by others…

It is honor in this sense that fuels today’s philosophers to a greater degree
than any ambition truly exists in the heart to actually give the world THE TRUTH with philosophy…

although such ambition would be truly honorable, would it not?

I don’t think philosophy must conform to any preconceived notions, but that’s just my philosophy. :wink: At any rate, I didn’t start the thread but merely responded to it. Honor is a word that carries a lot of baggage, as evidenced by words like “romantic” being applied to it. I don’t understand the term “fundamental” as applied in this context. A thing simply is what it is. I just wonder if we’re using the same word but meaning something else. If the thread would’ve been titled “integrity” or “honesty”, maybe those words wouldn’t have struck such an emotional chord with people.

Fair enough…

I want say this one last thing about honor: if I’m emotional about this at all, my emotion would be supportive towards all the things that make this world a bettr place. Philosophy doesn’t want emotions, nor romance. Philosophy’s only emotion is the passion to question absolutely eveything we can possibly think of. Being “fundamental”; being reliant on “right” and “wrong”; and being emotional to “honor” and all, is romantic novice.

then jeffery dahmer was very honorable…


he did what he knew was right…


no emotions? tell that to Epicurius…


I’m not an expert on the Dahmer case, Impenitent, but even I have read enough about it to know that Dahmer knew what he was doing was very wrong. And he considered himself “evil”, at least at times. His sick crimes were done only to gratify his base desires, not to help anyone else. And he probably didn’t understand the consequences of his actions.

Your argument could be a good one, but you’d have to have a better example to be convincing. Hitler could be an a good example, if he truly believed that what he was doing was right and for the betterment of the People. So long as a person genuinely believes they’re doing what’s right and are internally consistent, then I’d say yes, the are “honorable.” At least for the purposes set forth here. But I don’t thing Jeffery Dahmer meets those criteria.