The Role of Honor (Concluding)

Honor is a concept that has bubbled up with people I have known, friends and others over the years. The conversation usually revolves around why some people have honor, why some people don't and what does honor look like in the modern world. It also discusses honor as a somewhat forgotten value system not supported by everyone. There is still a place for honor just like there is for truth, integrity, moral conscious, and other high value systems that differentiate the core of people. Honor can come to define part of what makes you, you.

The Librarian, 1566
Aquiring books 
but not reading them.
i.e. having information
but little knowledge.
Source

The concept of honor might mean different things to different people. I see honor through the lens of history and certain types of characteristics that define a person within their social context but also over that social context (not being fully herd oriented.) Some view honor as something that is more or less socially oriented without connecting to the deeper values that come with the inner capacity to act with honor. Honor to one's group but not the higher principles.

How one views honor is dependent on their exposure, knowledge,backgrounds, institutional understandings. Read history, understand religion, have military experience, know a little of philosophy, social psychological infuence, etc. and your concept of honor is diverse while still being able to be cohesively conceptualized. Others may see honor as a word not fully associated with many different fascets of human life. There are spiritual leaders, military leaders, civil leaders and others that have a value system with honor. Who they are and how they thought is a deeper understanding of where honor comes from versus focusing on the notariety of the person who had it (i.e famous historical figures have displayed the capacity for honor that comes from the same internal value mechanisms as everyday honor you and I experience.).

Let us consider a hypothetical example for learning purposes. In this example people were allowed to spread rumors, enrich off of lies, target people (based on racial, religious, political, social, and/or "local" status), manipulate the sick and dying, openly violate rights so on and so forth. As a cultic type homogeneous clan they viewed people they designated accurately/inaccurately as outsiders and treated them differently as a closed system that ranged from social to official influences.

Let us say in this example we have a difficult situation because the perpetrators blame the victims and have local support that will seek to use institutions to ensure their "truth" is the primary narrative (i.e. using intimidation against people who disagreed.). That might fly in the face of the laws, rules and norms the rest of the nation. The purpose of laws has been changed. Let us say a third party (arbitrator/legal expert) is used to assess the outcomes and that is expected to be a neutral third party not seeking to advance racial, religious, political, social and/or "local" status.

Legal Expert 1 says the victims are responsible for the misbehaviors based on the perceived differences and worthiness of mistreatment(...anchoring back to a divisionary perception of society). To them the presence or opinion of someone seen as a second class is enough to justify the aggressive behaviors.

Legal Expert 2 views the misbehaviors of the perpetrators as responsible based on their choices to continuously engage in increasingly dangerous behaviors while the victims did nothing (...anchoring to the root principles of society.)

One focuses on defining what is right through the lens in which they view themselves and people like them as beneficiaries of society (segregationists and exclusionary perceptions). The other focuses on the principles of society (i.e. freedom of religion, freedom of speech, Constitution and civil/human rights) through the legal definition of citizen (agreed upon definition).

Let us consider another example along the same strain. Legal Expert 1 believes that freedom of religion applies primarily to their own/group religion and freedom of speech applies to their/group's opinion while not extending that right to others.. Legal Expert 2 believes in the value of mutiple religions and have enough exposure to see their commonalities among them. The same can be said for the subjective "truths" in personal and political opinions.

Thus, in alignment with professed oaths (and social contracts) both experts adhere, one would likely be see as more honorable than the other. The key differentiator is having enough development as a person to see the root purpose/logic of society and why these social contracts exist. If one doesn't understand the greater purpose of law, rules, social contracts then it might also open question as to leadership capacity and faithfulness to values that we collectively agreed upon.

The outcomes are different based on what they believe is honorable for their roles and that is based in their capacity to see their role in one lens versus another. Honor has a place but that is based in how we act and what we see are important to society (i.e. how we define those in and outside of that society. in-group and out-group.). Honor might be another way to see behaviors and precisely from whom one seeks such honor (the narrow or wide angle).

A more ancient perspective might include, "Dignity does not consist in possessing honors, but in deserving them." Aristotle

I found an interesting study 'The Role of Honor' that I think explores the idea of honor. A few Key points are:

-Honor shapes psychological perspectives.

-Honor is culturally laden.

-It can be individualized or group oriented.

-Honor in the perception of intrapersonal, interpersonal, and intergroup outcomes.

*This is a hypothetical example for learning purposes. It is a type of thought experiment on freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the Constitution, and human/civil rights. Take with a grain of salt. 

Uskul AK, Cross SE, Günsoy C. The role of honour in interpersonal, intrapersonal and intergroup processes. Soc Personal Psychol Compass. 2023 Jan;17(1):e12719. doi: 10.1111/spc3.12719. Epub 2022 Dec 11. PMID: 37033685; PMCID: PMC10078545. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10078545/