[Hong Wu]

I've found that it can be difficult to define what honor is. As with many "primal" things, we just know it when we see it.

My theory of honor has two points I'd like to discuss:
1. Keeping your word, even when situations change or it becomes difficult. This is the primary definition of honor
Example: when the situation changes and you would lose money by keeping your word, but you keep it anyway.

2. Honor is hierarchy. When everyone keeps their word, a natural hierarchy can emerge and real leadership results.
Contrast: When no one can trust anyone else, it's impossible to form a stable hierarchy or to achieve efficient leadership.

What do you guys think? Would you add anything to this definition of honor?

[kobe]

The way I've always thought of it is that honor and tradition were the values of the nobility/aristocracy. Nowadays honor is a meaningless construct because we have destroyed all the institutions that would have valued "honor". Our society does not value honor, it values freedom, competition, and self-interest.

[EU rope]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_system

[kobe]

More from Marx (I knew I was echoing something he had said in the German Ideology):

Ruling Class and Ruling Ideas

The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance. The individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think. Insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent and compass of an epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age: thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch. For instance, in an age and in a country where royal power, aristocracy, and bourgeoisie are contending for mastery and where, therefore, mastery is shared, the doctrine of the separation of powers proves to be the dominant idea and is expressed as an “eternal law.”

The division of labour, which we already saw above as one of the chief forces of history up till now, manifests itself also in the ruling class as the division of mental and material labour, so that inside this class one part appears as the thinkers of the class (its active, conceptive ideologists, who make the perfecting of the illusion of the class about itself their chief source of livelihood), while the others’ attitude to these ideas and illusions is more passive and receptive [kobe note: as in the people told to be honorable], because they are in reality the active members of this class and have less time to make up illusions and ideas about themselves. Within this class this cleavage can even develop into a certain opposition and hostility between the two parts, which, however, in the case of a practical collision, in which the class itself is endangered, automatically comes to nothing, in which case there also vanishes the semblance that the ruling ideas were not the ideas of the ruling class and had a power distinct from the power of this class. The existence of revolutionary ideas in a particular period presupposes the existence of a revolutionary class; about the premises for the latter sufficient has already been said above.

If now in considering the course of history we detach the ideas of the ruling class from the ruling class itself and attribute to them an independent existence, if we confine ourselves to saying that these or those ideas were dominant at a given time, without bothering ourselves about the conditions of production and the producers of these ideas, if we thus ignore the individuals and world conditions which are the source of the ideas, we can say, for instance, that during the time that the aristocracy was dominant, the concepts honour, loyalty, etc. were dominant, during the dominance of the bourgeoisie the concepts freedom, equality, etc. The ruling class itself on the whole imagines this to be so. This conception of history, which is common to all historians, particularly since the eighteenth century, will necessarily come up against the phenomenon that increasingly abstract ideas hold sway, i.e. ideas which increasingly take on the form of universality. For each new class which puts itself in the place of one ruling before it, is compelled, merely in order to carry through its aim, to represent its interest as the common interest of all the members of society, that is, expressed in ideal form: it has to give its ideas the form of universality, and represent them as the only rational, universally valid ones. The class making a revolution appears from the very start, if only because it is opposed to a class, not as a class but as the representative of the whole of society; it appears as the whole mass of society confronting the one ruling class. ”

It can do this because, to start with, its interest really is more connected with the common interest of all other non-ruling classes, because under the pressure of hitherto existing conditions its interest has not yet been able to develop as the particular interest of a particular class. Its victory, therefore, benefits also many individuals of the other classes which are not winning a dominant position, but only insofar as it now puts these individuals in a position to raise themselves into the ruling class. When the French bourgeoisie overthrew the power of the aristocracy, it thereby made it possible for many proletarians to raise themselves above the proletariat, but only insofar as they become bourgeois. Every new class, therefore, achieves its hegemony only on a broader basis than that of the class ruling previously, whereas the opposition of the non-ruling class against the new ruling class later develops all the more sharply and profoundly. Both these things determine the fact that the struggle to be waged against this new ruling class, in its turn, aims at a more decided and radical negation of the previous conditions of society than could all previous classes which sought to rule.

This whole semblance, that the rule of a certain class is only the rule of certain ideas, comes to a natural end, of course, as soon as class rule in general ceases to be the form in which society is organised, that is to say, as soon as it is no longer necessary to represent a particular interest as general or the “general interest” as ruling.

I left the rest unbolded but it's still good stuff.

[Hong Wu]

Sounds absurd to me. So relativistic. He seems to be saying that people who don't come from the ruling class can't think or formulate their own ideas.

He also seems to be saying that things like honor, loyalty an so-on are just tools used by the ruling class. The communists probably began to think otherwise when their states were collapsing. Note that he never says what ideas the communists would make central to their rule, he just says that they'd make some...

But yeah, what is honor?

[Hong Wu]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_system

This is a good source. An underlying point I think is that honor systems increase efficiency but only work when people value something more than they do money. Here's my thoughts in detail:

Transport: Transport systems will sometimes use the "honor system" because if they don't trust that people will pay, they have to slow everything down to confirm payment. This would be very damaging to the efficiency of a transport system which needs to be fast in order to be worth it.

Bars: People will drink more when they aren't paying for each drink all at once. They have friends there, so if they don't clear their tab they lose the value of their friendship which is (usually) worth more to them than money saved on alcohol.

Honor system in tests: Rarely applied today, it relies upon the idea that knowing the information is more valuable than getting a high score on the test. This is still true when it comes to technical subjects but when it comes to liberal arts subjects, all that matters is the grade you got.

Low security prisons where the prisoners can leave: This is a sort of pseudo-honor that encourages certain behaviors from the inmates. Due to their low threat as criminals, it is reasoned that they will harm themselves more by illegally leaving the jail than by staying in it, since that would be as bad or worse than whatever they did that got themselves put into low-security prison in the first place. The philosophy is probably to encourage them to have honor. It is also far more efficient than placing everyone into a high-security prison.

Automatic checkouts at stores: Found only in low-crime areas where the population presumably has more honor for a variety of reasons.

[quetzalcoatl]

But yeah, what is honor?

How do you behave when no one is around to see? What are your values when no one is present to applaud or condemn?

That is honor.

[Left Behind]

Honour has three broad meanings, it was historically a kind of masculine compassion, which prescribed acts and regulated the way they were carried out. It was honourable to save a princess but it was also honourable to do so by slaying her captor in single combat rather than with covert tactics. It generally doesn't have much to do with charity or simple acts of kindness. In this sense it is similar to chivalry. This meaning has fallen out of common usage as traditional and marshal ideas of masculinity have decayed.

Its modern meaning is essentially generally upstanding or honest behaviour, like keeping your word.

Finally it was historically used as a noun as well. Your 'honour' was equivalent to some form of status, which when insulted would have to be protected through some honourable act (a duel for example).

Overall it is a term similar to 'integrity' in its grey standards of usage.

Edit: In a sense Kobe is right, when society was ruled by the nobility 'honour' had a meaning similar to chivalry, but capitalist honour is simply keeping one's word which ensures the success of business deals and contracts.

[Dagoth Ur]

Some romantic bullshit for chumps with no self-confidence.

[kobe]

Sounds absurd to me. So relativistic. He seems to be saying that people who don't come from the ruling class can't think or formulate their own ideas.

No, he's saying that they're not wont to write them down, teach them in classrooms, talk about them as the ruling body politic, etc. Furthermore, you're completely decontextualizing when he said this. At the time, universal education was not what it is today. Go back even further and there is extremely little education. Go back much further and only a small portion of the population is educated. You are doing the mistake many readers make when analyzing philosophical texts: removing them from the time period which they were written in. In Marx's time, the class distinctions were even sharper than they were right now, and people would openly mock the lower classes.

He also seems to be saying that things like honor, loyalty an so-on are just tools used by the ruling class. The communists probably began to think otherwise when their states were collapsing. Note that he never says what ideas the communists would make central to their rule, he just says that they'd make some...

The theoretical ideas championed by the proletariat at his time were universal equality, futurism, scientific management; ie concepts that emphasize the destruction of the class distinctions.

And that's not quite what he's saying. I doubt Marx would think it would be possible for the entirety of the bourgeoisie or the aristocracy coming together to agree on one set of rules. Instead it is the material forces that determines the structure of society, and the structure of society that determines the society's ideology. It is a subtle but nonetheless important distinction. That's why a lot of Marxists tend to be critical of conspiracy theories, because they view the world from a perspective that is not compatible with materialists.

But yeah, what is honor?

A word empty of meaning, the vestigial norms of a time when women were property who needed to remain chaste and abstain from adultery in order to protect the investment of her husband into her, and men needed to have their character respected in order to maintain their position in society and not be ostracized, excommunicated, or executed.

[fuser]

Some romantic bullshit for chumps with no self-confidence.

This.

[Hong Wu]

I find it kind of weird that a Muslim thinks honor is BS. I would have thought it's what the Qur'an is largely about, besides the obvious anyway.

[ThirdTerm]

The Muslim world is known for honour killings, in which the victims are killed by their male relatives for bringing shame or dishonour upon their families. Islamic society is too keen on defending its female members' honour and most of Muslim women cannot even show off their physical beauty in public. Someone brought up the 2005 Cronulla riots in another place and it was a typical conflict situation between street gangs, who engaged in street fights to defend their honour and manhood. Otherwise, the reputation of your ethnic group was at stake and you would be getting bullied routinely in public places by a rival group like Chinese Australians. Either way, a "culture of honour" is inherently violent, which forces you to defend your honour by resorting to violence, as it was evident in medieval Europe.

A crowd gathered at Cronulla on the morning of Sunday, 11 December 2005 and, by midday, approximately 5,000 people had gathered near the beach to protest against recent violence towards locals. However, fuelled by alcohol, the crowd turned to violence when a young man of Arab appearance was spotted on the beach. He was surrounded by a crowd outside a local hotel and attacked, along with similar attacks later that day. Retaliatory attacks also took place that night and on subsequent nights, resulting in extensive property damage and several more assaults, including two separate, racially motivated stabbings and even some attacks against ambulance and police officers.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Cronulla_riots

[Dagoth Ur]

I find it kind of weird that a Muslim thinks honor is BS. I would have thought it's what the Qur'an is largely about, besides the obvious anyway.

The Qur'an is 100% anti-honor culture, as it was a deeply ingrained aspect of Pagan Arabia. Islam's failure to fully eradicate that scourge is a black-eye for all of us.

[Hong Wu]

The Qur'an is 100% anti-honor culture, as it was a deeply ingrained aspect of Pagan Arabia. Islam's failure to fully eradicate that scourge is a black-eye for all of us.

Can you elaborate on this? I am skeptical. As you said, it's definitely still there in a certain form.

[kobe]

Hong Wu was looking for another "nice guy" with "honor" to circlejerk with about how thoughtful and honorable they are, unlike those assholes who get all the girls, amirite?

[Hong Wu]

Hong Wu was looking for another "nice guy" with "honor" to circlejerk with about how thoughtful and honorable they are, unlike those assholes who get all the girls, amirite?

Bro if I can't be happy at least I am good or whatever the argument was. It's cool! And it could be worse, I could be...

Spoiler: show

a communist

[Hong Wu]

Communists be all like, "hey guys, we don't need money or honor. Now why isn't anyone picking up the garbage?"

[kobe]

Yes, because if there is one thing that communists are known for, it's the sacrifice of the greater good in favor of short-term individual benefit. O wait...

[anasawad]

i honestly don't have a specific definition for it but i think the closest i can get is the good-reputation and the class of a person .
class in matter of culture and behavior not in matter of money.

now in lebanon between the tribes there is an honor culture but its different from that of the rest of the arab world in a good way if you want my opinion
though it has some downsides .
for example . we consider it dishonorable if one rich man would eat and live very well and fine while he has a neighbor that is poor and not doing so well .
thats a good quality in our traditions .
in the other hand .if lets say a guy assaults a girl from a certain tribe. then he insulted the entire tribe's honor thus he will most likely be killed .
which in hand would most oftenly result in armed conflicts specially if it was between 2 tribes and worse if they were heavily armed.

actually the last point is why a girl in baalbak is far less likely to be harassed or assaulted in comparison to any other place in the mid east or maybe even most parts of the world . because everyone knows that such thing doesn't pass without harsh response .
the last rape case in baalbak ended up in the state army fighting a battle against 2 tribes to be able to save the "rapist" .but they failed and the guy
got shot enough times to tor his body apart .

-for a previous point about honor killing .
honor killing is mostly common in gulf states ,jordan,and iraq.
in lebanon,syria,and iran its a crime mostly punishable by death .
yet in the same time specially in case of lebanon and iran .honor killing is on the other way around.
lets say if 2 had an afair out of marriage and everyone found out about it (talking about tribal area's not everywhere) .its mostly that the girl will get lightly punished while the guy in most cases end up either running as far as possible away or get killed .
so honor killing usually is targeted against the male not the female .

-and concerning islam .islam worked to remove honor-culture and tribalism in the region .