Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Morality vs Honor

Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2014 2:44:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
honor-
honesty, fairness, or integrity in one's beliefs and actions: a man of honor.
http://dictionary.reference.com...

moral-
of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical
http://dictionary.reference.com...

The definitions don't really capture the meanings of these words enough. Honor seems like it has to do with high self esteem or placing a high value on one's self, while morality suggests a feeling of right or wrong.

I've always felt like morality was a childish concept. A child doesn't steal a cookie because it's wrong, while a man doesn't do it, because he has honor.

I consider myself an amoral person, because I don't have a an altruistic bone in me. When I do the right thing, you can bet it has nothing to do with my sense of right or wrong and everything to do with my code of honor.

I consider people with morality weak while I consider those with honor strong. I'd like to see more opinions on morality vs honor. What's the difference? What's superior? Discuss.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2014 3:41:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/4/2014 2:44:51 AM, Wylted wrote:
honor-
honesty, fairness, or integrity in one's beliefs and actions: a man of honor.
http://dictionary.reference.com...

moral-
of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical
http://dictionary.reference.com...

The definitions don't really capture the meanings of these words enough. Honor seems like it has to do with high self esteem or placing a high value on one's self, while morality suggests a feeling of right or wrong.

I've always felt like morality was a childish concept. A child doesn't steal a cookie because it's wrong, while a man doesn't do it, because he has honor.

I consider myself an amoral person, because I don't have a an altruistic bone in me. When I do the right thing, you can bet it has nothing to do with my sense of right or wrong and everything to do with my code of honor.

I consider people with morality weak while I consider those with honor strong. I'd like to see more opinions on morality vs honor. What's the difference? What's superior? Discuss.

Reminds me of the Friends episode which centered around "There is no real selfless action".

Which I am still on the fence about. Regardless of whether something is done for honor or moral reasons, it all stems back to the fact that we would like to in some way be treated in kind. That we are nice to people because we want them to be nice back. We are charitable because we want them to be charitable in our own times of need.

Etc...

And conventions of morality/honor/etc are just convoluted constructs on those principles.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2014 3:47:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/4/2014 3:41:58 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/4/2014 2:44:51 AM, Wylted wrote:
honor-
honesty, fairness, or integrity in one's beliefs and actions: a man of honor.
http://dictionary.reference.com...

moral-
of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical
http://dictionary.reference.com...

The definitions don't really capture the meanings of these words enough. Honor seems like it has to do with high self esteem or placing a high value on one's self, while morality suggests a feeling of right or wrong.

I've always felt like morality was a childish concept. A child doesn't steal a cookie because it's wrong, while a man doesn't do it, because he has honor.

I consider myself an amoral person, because I don't have a an altruistic bone in me. When I do the right thing, you can bet it has nothing to do with my sense of right or wrong and everything to do with my code of honor.

I consider people with morality weak while I consider those with honor strong. I'd like to see more opinions on morality vs honor. What's the difference? What's superior? Discuss.

Reminds me of the Friends episode which centered around "There is no real selfless action".

Which I am still on the fence about. Regardless of whether something is done for honor or moral reasons, it all stems back to the fact that we would like to in some way be treated in kind. That we are nice to people because we want them to be nice back. We are charitable because we want them to be charitable in our own times of need.

Etc...

And conventions of morality/honor/etc are just convoluted constructs on those principles.

It's not true. Honor has nothing to do with how I want to be treated. I do want to be treated kindly, but I'd prefer harsh treatment if the alternative meant I'd have to compromise my code of honor. Like they say "death before dishonor".
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2014 5:30:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Instantly reminds me of Plato. He argued honor was outright useless, and IMO, it's built off of others morals. Which is why this question is broken. Honor is essentially a code of conduct set up by society as a whole, and it often differed between cultures. Wise men make their own morals.
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2014 9:32:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Morality is the immediate and absolute state of being you occupy while making actions. Honor is a judgment made of your character on the whole, based on your moral performance. I could make a hundred moral choices today, some good, some bad. If I am generally successful in those choices, I could be considered honorable.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2014 12:47:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/4/2014 9:32:58 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
Morality is the immediate and absolute state of being you occupy while making actions. Honor is a judgment made of your character on the whole, based on your moral performance. I could make a hundred moral choices today, some good, some bad. If I am generally successful in those choices, I could be considered honorable.

I don't buy it. A moral person and an honorable person aren't necessarily synonymous. I can do something for the sake of honor that the entirety of society finds immoral. If I were going to judge somebody as a moral person it would be an entirely different meaning than judging them as an honorable person.

I think one is more in line with doing something for a higher good. While the other is action based on your self esteem.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2014 1:02:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/4/2014 5:30:42 AM, ChosenWolff wrote:
Instantly reminds me of Plato. He argued honor was outright useless, and IMO, it's built off of others morals. Which is why this question is broken. Honor is essentially a code of conduct set up by society as a whole, and it often differed between cultures. Wise men make their own morals.

Honor isn't a code of conduct set up by society. That would be morals which is the innate feeling of right or wrong. Honor is more like a code you decide on in line with your character. If anything morals would be useless, because it's what society uses a a form of coercion to get your behaviors to align with a way that's beneficial to them.

Making your own morals isn't even possible. Maybe you mean creating your own code of honor, or even disregarding morals.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2014 1:06:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/4/2014 2:44:51 AM, Wylted wrote:
honor-
honesty, fairness, or integrity in one's beliefs and actions: a man of honor.
http://dictionary.reference.com...

moral-
of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical
http://dictionary.reference.com...

The definitions don't really capture the meanings of these words enough. Honor seems like it has to do with high self esteem or placing a high value on one's self, while morality suggests a feeling of right or wrong.

I've always felt like morality was a childish concept. A child doesn't steal a cookie because it's wrong, while a man doesn't do it, because he has honor.

I consider myself an amoral person, because I don't have a an altruistic bone in me. When I do the right thing, you can bet it has nothing to do with my sense of right or wrong and everything to do with my code of honor.

I consider people with morality weak while I consider those with honor strong. I'd like to see more opinions on morality vs honor. What's the difference? What's superior? Discuss.

What you seem to be saying here is that you think it right for people to have honor, and wrong for people to be dishonorable.

This is a form of morality. It may not conform to many people's expectations of what morality should be, but it is most certainly a statement of your own morality. Other people may consider you amoral, and you may consider your own beliefs to be morally irrelevant to others' versions of morality...but that does not mean that you do not possess your own moral code.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2014 1:06:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/4/2014 12:47:45 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 7/4/2014 9:32:58 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
Morality is the immediate and absolute state of being you occupy while making actions. Honor is a judgment made of your character on the whole, based on your moral performance. I could make a hundred moral choices today, some good, some bad. If I am generally successful in those choices, I could be considered honorable.

I don't buy it.

Well get your money out, Bucko, because I'm selling you some high quality stuff!

A moral person and an honorable person aren't necessarily synonymous. I can do something for the sake of honor that the entirety of society finds immoral. If I were going to judge somebody as a moral person it would be an entirely different meaning than judging them as an honorable person.

I didn't say they were synonymous, I said people make judgments about your honor depending on how they view your morality. The two are entirely distinct.

I think one is more in line with doing something for a higher good. While the other is action based on your self esteem.

Well somebody with bad self esteem is hardly in the position to excel in moral endeavors... But I fail to see the inherent connection there.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2014 1:20:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/4/2014 1:06:22 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/4/2014 2:44:51 AM, Wylted wrote:
honor-
honesty, fairness, or integrity in one's beliefs and actions: a man of honor.
http://dictionary.reference.com...

moral-
of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical
http://dictionary.reference.com...

The definitions don't really capture the meanings of these words enough. Honor seems like it has to do with high self esteem or placing a high value on one's self, while morality suggests a feeling of right or wrong.

I've always felt like morality was a childish concept. A child doesn't steal a cookie because it's wrong, while a man doesn't do it, because he has honor.

I consider myself an amoral person, because I don't have a an altruistic bone in me. When I do the right thing, you can bet it has nothing to do with my sense of right or wrong and everything to do with my code of honor.

I consider people with morality weak while I consider those with honor strong. I'd like to see more opinions on morality vs honor. What's the difference? What's superior? Discuss.

What you seem to be saying here is that you think it right for people to have honor, and wrong for people to be dishonorable.

Not really right or wrong. I honestly just view people with honor as superior. A person with honor is more likely to be predictable in certain ways and are therefore more trustworthy and dependable than somebody with morals. A person is much more likely to go against their own moral code than their own code of honor.

This is a form of morality. It may not conform to many people's expectations of what morality should be, but it is most certainly a statement of your own morality. Other people may consider you amoral, and you may consider your own beliefs to be morally irrelevant to others' versions of morality...but that does not mean that you do not possess your own moral code.

So are you saying the terms code of honor and moral code are synonymous? Me not being a thief has nothing to do with me thinking stealing is wrong. It has to do with me holding myself to a higher standard, because I think I'm superior to those around me. It has to do with me knowing my value as a human being is raised by my code of honor. You see this hasn't anything to do with right or wrong.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2014 1:24:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/4/2014 1:06:58 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 7/4/2014 12:47:45 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 7/4/2014 9:32:58 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
Morality is the immediate and absolute state of being you occupy while making actions. Honor is a judgment made of your character on the whole, based on your moral performance. I could make a hundred moral choices today, some good, some bad. If I am generally successful in those choices, I could be considered honorable.

I don't buy it.

Well get your money out, Bucko, because I'm selling you some high quality stuff!


A moral person and an honorable person aren't necessarily synonymous. I can do something for the sake of honor that the entirety of society finds immoral. If I were going to judge somebody as a moral person it would be an entirely different meaning than judging them as an honorable person.

I didn't say they were synonymous, I said people make judgments about your honor depending on how they view your morality. The two are entirely distinct.

I think one is more in line with doing something for a higher good. While the other is action based on your self esteem.

Well somebody with bad self esteem is hardly in the position to excel in moral endeavors... But I fail to see the inherent connection there.

Honor is directly related to actions carried out as a result of how you view yourself or how you want to be viewed. Morality is a result of doing what you deem is right or wrong based on some belief about a higher good.

It seems like you're treating the terms honorable and moral as synonymous, when a moral man is separate and distinct from an honorable man.

Honor is directly attached to self esteem. Where areas morality is tied to this ideal of a higher good, be it society or god or Mother Earth etc..
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2014 1:38:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/4/2014 1:20:12 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 7/4/2014 1:06:22 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/4/2014 2:44:51 AM, Wylted wrote:
honor-
honesty, fairness, or integrity in one's beliefs and actions: a man of honor.
http://dictionary.reference.com...

moral-
of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical
http://dictionary.reference.com...

The definitions don't really capture the meanings of these words enough. Honor seems like it has to do with high self esteem or placing a high value on one's self, while morality suggests a feeling of right or wrong.

I've always felt like morality was a childish concept. A child doesn't steal a cookie because it's wrong, while a man doesn't do it, because he has honor.

I consider myself an amoral person, because I don't have a an altruistic bone in me. When I do the right thing, you can bet it has nothing to do with my sense of right or wrong and everything to do with my code of honor.

I consider people with morality weak while I consider those with honor strong. I'd like to see more opinions on morality vs honor. What's the difference? What's superior? Discuss.

What you seem to be saying here is that you think it right for people to have honor, and wrong for people to be dishonorable.

Not really right or wrong. I honestly just view people with honor as superior.

I'm going to focus on this specifically. If anyone viewed anything as superior to something else, wouldn't they be "right" to pursue/appropriate this thing or idea?

That's what I was getting at...assigning a value judgment where you place more worth on something predicates that pursuing or appropriating what is worthy of being pursued or appropriated is "right".

A person with honor is more likely to be predictable in certain ways and are therefore more trustworthy and dependable than somebody with morals. A person is much more likely to go against their own moral code than their own code of honor.

This is a form of morality. It may not conform to many people's expectations of what morality should be, but it is most certainly a statement of your own morality. Other people may consider you amoral, and you may consider your own beliefs to be morally irrelevant to others' versions of morality...but that does not mean that you do not possess your own moral code.

So are you saying the terms code of honor and moral code are synonymous? Me not being a thief has nothing to do with me thinking stealing is wrong. It has to do with me holding myself to a higher standard, because I think I'm superior to those around me.

Honor as you have defined does not (at all) involve this superiority complex. I'd say that your sense of honor is incongruous with how you have defined honor.

It has to do with me knowing my value as a human being is raised by my code of honor. You see this hasn't anything to do with right or wrong.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2014 1:47:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Actually, wylted completely bombed the definition. Wrichcriw is spot on. Morals are what you believe in. Honor is how you measure up to your morals. For example, if you think premature sex is wrong, and you courage someone to do it, you're being dishonorable. They are two pieces of the same pie.
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2014 1:53:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/4/2014 1:24:55 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 7/4/2014 1:06:58 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 7/4/2014 12:47:45 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 7/4/2014 9:32:58 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
Morality is the immediate and absolute state of being you occupy while making actions. Honor is a judgment made of your character on the whole, based on your moral performance. I could make a hundred moral choices today, some good, some bad. If I am generally successful in those choices, I could be considered honorable.

I don't buy it.

Well get your money out, Bucko, because I'm selling you some high quality stuff!


A moral person and an honorable person aren't necessarily synonymous. I can do something for the sake of honor that the entirety of society finds immoral. If I were going to judge somebody as a moral person it would be an entirely different meaning than judging them as an honorable person.

I didn't say they were synonymous, I said people make judgments about your honor depending on how they view your morality. The two are entirely distinct.

I think one is more in line with doing something for a higher good. While the other is action based on your self esteem.

Well somebody with bad self esteem is hardly in the position to excel in moral endeavors... But I fail to see the inherent connection there.

Honor is directly related to actions carried out as a result of how you view yourself or how you want to be viewed. Morality is a result of doing what you deem is right or wrong based on some belief about a higher good.

It seems like you're treating the terms honorable and moral as synonymous, when a moral man is separate and distinct from an honorable man.

Really. Who is your example of such an immoral, honorable man or such a dishonorable, moral man? I think this is where my argument is going to stand ;)

Honor is directly attached to self esteem.

Explain?

Where areas morality is tied to this ideal of a higher good, be it society or god or Mother Earth etc..

Morality means many different things to many different people, but there is a common reason why we tend towards moral action and it isn't because of sociology, it's because of biology. There's a right and wrong way of doing anything. Morality is the right way to live. If I drop a nickel into a donations bucket to save the trees somewhere, I'm not doing it because I have a duty to "Mother Earth," I'm doing it because it's the action, as Immanuel Kant stated in the Categorical Imperative, that if replicated by anyone and everyone else, would cause good (i.e., positive utility, social welfare, etc.). There's the social component but there is also the personal component. People act morally because morality makes you feel good. I make donations more to make myself feel better than for the miniscule progress it makes towards the cause.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2014 2:36:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/4/2014 1:38:06 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/4/2014 1:20:12 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 7/4/2014 1:06:22 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/4/2014 2:44:51 AM, Wylted wrote:
honor-
honesty, fairness, or integrity in one's beliefs and actions: a man of honor.
http://dictionary.reference.com...

moral-
of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical
http://dictionary.reference.com...

The definitions don't really capture the meanings of these words enough. Honor seems like it has to do with high self esteem or placing a high value on one's self, while morality suggests a feeling of right or wrong.

I've always felt like morality was a childish concept. A child doesn't steal a cookie because it's wrong, while a man doesn't do it, because he has honor.

I consider myself an amoral person, because I don't have a an altruistic bone in me. When I do the right thing, you can bet it has nothing to do with my sense of right or wrong and everything to do with my code of honor.

I consider people with morality weak while I consider those with honor strong. I'd like to see more opinions on morality vs honor. What's the difference? What's superior? Discuss.

What you seem to be saying here is that you think it right for people to have honor, and wrong for people to be dishonorable.

Not really right or wrong. I honestly just view people with honor as superior.

I'm going to focus on this specifically. If anyone viewed anything as superior to something else, wouldn't they be "right" to pursue/appropriate this thing or idea?

That's what I was getting at...assigning a value judgment where you place more worth on something predicates that pursuing or appropriating what is worthy of being pursued or appropriated is "right".

Right has multiple definitions. The 2 definitions can be seen as correct and moral. The correct decision isn't always the moral decision and visa versa. In terms of morality it would assume some form of greater good. Where areas honor would be directly related to self esteem. If I make a decision that is right (correct), it's completely different than making a decision because it's right (moral).

A person with honor is more likely to be predictable in certain ways and are therefore more trustworthy and dependable than somebody with morals. A person is much more likely to go against their own moral code than their own code of honor.

This is a form of morality. It may not conform to many people's expectations of what morality should be, but it is most certainly a statement of your own morality. Other people may consider you amoral, and you may consider your own beliefs to be morally irrelevant to others' versions of morality...but that does not mean that you do not possess your own moral code.

So are you saying the terms code of honor and moral code are synonymous? Me not being a thief has nothing to do with me thinking stealing is wrong. It has to do with me holding myself to a higher standard, because I think I'm superior to those around me.

Honor as you have defined does not (at all) involve this superiority complex. I'd say that your sense of honor is incongruous with how you have defined honor.

It has to do with me knowing my value as a human being is raised by my code of honor. You see this hasn't anything to do with right or wrong.

I'm having a hard time defining these words, and I don't think people are grasping the appropriate definitions of honor and moral, which go well beyond what the dictionary defines. I'd also think you'd need to have some sort of superiority complex to hide your self in high enough esteem to have an honor code.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2014 4:11:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/4/2014 2:36:51 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 7/4/2014 1:38:06 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/4/2014 1:20:12 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 7/4/2014 1:06:22 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/4/2014 2:44:51 AM, Wylted wrote:
honor-
honesty, fairness, or integrity in one's beliefs and actions: a man of honor.
http://dictionary.reference.com...

moral-
of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical
http://dictionary.reference.com...

The definitions don't really capture the meanings of these words enough. Honor seems like it has to do with high self esteem or placing a high value on one's self, while morality suggests a feeling of right or wrong.

I've always felt like morality was a childish concept. A child doesn't steal a cookie because it's wrong, while a man doesn't do it, because he has honor.

I consider myself an amoral person, because I don't have a an altruistic bone in me. When I do the right thing, you can bet it has nothing to do with my sense of right or wrong and everything to do with my code of honor.

I consider people with morality weak while I consider those with honor strong. I'd like to see more opinions on morality vs honor. What's the difference? What's superior? Discuss.

What you seem to be saying here is that you think it right for people to have honor, and wrong for people to be dishonorable.

Not really right or wrong. I honestly just view people with honor as superior.

I'm going to focus on this specifically. If anyone viewed anything as superior to something else, wouldn't they be "right" to pursue/appropriate this thing or idea?

That's what I was getting at...assigning a value judgment where you place more worth on something predicates that pursuing or appropriating what is worthy of being pursued or appropriated is "right".

Right has multiple definitions. The 2 definitions can be seen as correct and moral. The correct decision isn't always the moral decision and visa versa. In terms of morality it would assume some form of greater good. Where areas honor would be directly related to self esteem. If I make a decision that is right (correct), it's completely different than making a decision because it's right (moral).

1) This is an artificial and incorrect characterization of what it means to be morally right. Moral action need not be for the "greater good". It could very well be action that benefits only yourself. That would be your own brand of morality, your own adherence to your own standards of conduct.

moral:
- of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

ethical:
- conforming to accepted standards of conduct
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

2) Are you aware of the concept of enlightened self interest? There are some situations where actions that benefit yourself benefit others, and actions that benefit others benefit yourself.

A person with honor is more likely to be predictable in certain ways and are therefore more trustworthy and dependable than somebody with morals. A person is much more likely to go against their own moral code than their own code of honor.

This is a form of morality. It may not conform to many people's expectations of what morality should be, but it is most certainly a statement of your own morality. Other people may consider you amoral, and you may consider your own beliefs to be morally irrelevant to others' versions of morality...but that does not mean that you do not possess your own moral code.

So are you saying the terms code of honor and moral code are synonymous? Me not being a thief has nothing to do with me thinking stealing is wrong. It has to do with me holding myself to a higher standard, because I think I'm superior to those around me.

Honor as you have defined does not (at all) involve this superiority complex. I'd say that your sense of honor is incongruous with how you have defined honor.

It has to do with me knowing my value as a human being is raised by my code of honor. You see this hasn't anything to do with right or wrong.

I'm having a hard time defining these words, and I don't think people are grasping the appropriate definitions of honor and moral, which go well beyond what the dictionary defines. I'd also think you'd need to have some sort of superiority complex to hide your self in high enough esteem to have an honor code.

I think the best way to think of someone being perceived as honorable is if that person had a moral code that others recognized as agreeing with their own differentiation between "right and wrong", and that person adhering to it. That others agree with your brand of morality makes it "fair", and that you adhere to it demonstrates "integrity".

The way you seem to define it (and which I happen to agree with) is that it's possible that honor can all be about self-perception, and adherence to a code that a person believes in regardless of what society stipulates. A simpler way to state this is that morality is subjective.

So, if you're moral by a certain standard of morality, you're honorable by that certain standard of morality...if you have a moral code, it is synonymous with what you hold to be a code of honor.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2014 4:16:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/4/2014 4:11:39 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Your argument was pretty in line with mine. Honor is how you live up to your morals, and of course, morality is those morals themselves. He claimed he would rather be perceived as honorable, but that requires to mimic others moral codes, which many tried to do in Japan and Europe (Bushido and Chivalry). In reality, if you don't have these systems ingrained in your moral code, then you're being dishonorable yourself.
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2014 4:45:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/4/2014 4:16:10 PM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 7/4/2014 4:11:39 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Your argument was pretty in line with mine. Honor is how you live up to your morals, and of course, morality is those morals themselves. He claimed he would rather be perceived as honorable, but that requires to mimic others moral codes, which many tried to do in Japan and Europe (Bushido and Chivalry). In reality, if you don't have these systems ingrained in your moral code, then you're being dishonorable yourself.

I think we're mostly in agreement, except that you do not seem to think that someone can have their own moral code. For example, what if you were a Christian that disagreed with Biblical script that called for women to be subservient to men? Strictly going by the Bible, any sense of allowing for a woman to think for herself is "immoral" (http://www.openbible.info...), yet many Christians do not adhere to this and have their own versions of morality when it comes to women.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2014 4:50:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/4/2014 4:45:22 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/4/2014 4:16:10 PM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 7/4/2014 4:11:39 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Your argument was pretty in line with mine. Honor is how you live up to your morals, and of course, morality is those morals themselves. He claimed he would rather be perceived as honorable, but that requires to mimic others moral codes, which many tried to do in Japan and Europe (Bushido and Chivalry). In reality, if you don't have these systems ingrained in your moral code, then you're being dishonorable yourself.

I think we're mostly in agreement, except that you do not seem to think that someone can have their own moral code.

Mistake, this is exactly what I said last round
For example, what if you were a Christian that disagreed with Biblical script that called for women to be subservient to men? Strictly going by the Bible, any sense of allowing for a woman to think for herself is "immoral" (http://www.openbible.info...), yet many Christians do not adhere to this and have their own versions of morality when it comes to women.
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2014 4:52:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/4/2014 4:50:58 PM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 7/4/2014 4:45:22 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/4/2014 4:16:10 PM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 7/4/2014 4:11:39 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Your argument was pretty in line with mine. Honor is how you live up to your morals, and of course, morality is those morals themselves. He claimed he would rather be perceived as honorable, but that requires to mimic others moral codes, which many tried to do in Japan and Europe (Bushido and Chivalry). In reality, if you don't have these systems ingrained in your moral code, then you're being dishonorable yourself.

I think we're mostly in agreement, except that you do not seem to think that someone can have their own moral code.

Mistake, this is exactly what I said last round

If you said it before, then the underlined contradicts it.

For example, what if you were a Christian that disagreed with Biblical script that called for women to be subservient to men? Strictly going by the Bible, any sense of allowing for a woman to think for herself is "immoral" (http://www.openbible.info...), yet many Christians do not adhere to this and have their own versions of morality when it comes to women.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2014 4:53:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/4/2014 4:52:14 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/4/2014 4:50:58 PM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 7/4/2014 4:45:22 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/4/2014 4:16:10 PM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 7/4/2014 4:11:39 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Your argument was pretty in line with mine. Honor is how you live up to your morals, and of course, morality is those morals themselves. He claimed he would rather be perceived as honorable, but that requires to mimic others moral codes, which many tried to do in Japan and Europe (Bushido and Chivalry). In reality, if you don't have these systems ingrained in your moral code, then you're being dishonorable yourself.

I think we're mostly in agreement, except that you do not seem to think that someone can have their own moral code.

Mistake, this is exactly what I said last round

If you said it before, then the underlined contradicts it.

I was referring to what society thinks of you. Back in days of Bushido, if you didn't follow bushido code, then you were somehow dishonorable. I equated what wylted said, as he thought morality was objective.

For example, what if you were a Christian that disagreed with Biblical script that called for women to be subservient to men? Strictly going by the Bible, any sense of allowing for a woman to think for herself is "immoral" (http://www.openbible.info...), yet many Christians do not adhere to this and have their own versions of morality when it comes to women.
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2014 5:18:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
You're using non-standard definitions (as you've admitted by the fact that you said that the dictionary definitions aren't what you would say the "actual" definitions are. There's nothing wrong with that, except for the fact that any argument about these terms needs to take into consideration the differences in what each group thinks the terms mean.

Using standard definitions, what is honourable is what a person thinks to be correct, and what is correct is what is right, so a system of honour is a system of morality.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 12:50:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/4/2014 2:44:51 AM, Wylted wrote:
honor-
honesty, fairness, or integrity in one's beliefs and actions: a man of honor.
http://dictionary.reference.com...

moral-
of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical
http://dictionary.reference.com...

The definitions don't really capture the meanings of these words enough. Honor seems like it has to do with high self esteem or placing a high value on one's self, while morality suggests a feeling of right or wrong.

I've always felt like morality was a childish concept. A child doesn't steal a cookie because it's wrong, while a man doesn't do it, because he has honor.

I consider myself an amoral person, because I don't have a an altruistic bone in me. When I do the right thing, you can bet it has nothing to do with my sense of right or wrong and everything to do with my code of honor.

I consider people with morality weak while I consider those with honor strong. I'd like to see more opinions on morality vs honor. What's the difference? What's superior? Discuss.

Morality is just a code of values. Whatever you value or devalue that's your morality.

Honor is closely, if not essentially, related. That which you value is that which you honor.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 3:44:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/4/2014 2:44:51 AM, Wylted wrote:
The definitions don't really capture the meanings of these words enough. Honor seems like it has to do with high self esteem or placing a high value on one's self, while morality suggests a feeling of right or wrong.

I've always felt like morality was a childish concept. A child doesn't steal a cookie because it's wrong, while a man doesn't do it, because he has honor.

I consider myself an amoral person, because I don't have a an altruistic bone in me. When I do the right thing, you can bet it has nothing to do with my sense of right or wrong and everything to do with my code of honor.

I consider people with morality weak while I consider those with honor strong. I'd like to see more opinions on morality vs honor. What's the difference? What's superior? Discuss.

How exactly do you ever make a decision without any idea about right and wrong? 'Amorality' is a myth, unless you're some kind of machine, which actually seems quite likely seeing as you're such a cold-hearted motherf*cker. I mean damn, that's icy.

To do something for the sake of your honour is to do something to avoid shame. That is really quite weak, is it not?
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 4:12:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 3:44:19 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 7/4/2014 2:44:51 AM, Wylted wrote:
The definitions don't really capture the meanings of these words enough. Honor seems like it has to do with high self esteem or placing a high value on one's self, while morality suggests a feeling of right or wrong.

I've always felt like morality was a childish concept. A child doesn't steal a cookie because it's wrong, while a man doesn't do it, because he has honor.

I consider myself an amoral person, because I don't have a an altruistic bone in me. When I do the right thing, you can bet it has nothing to do with my sense of right or wrong and everything to do with my code of honor.

I consider people with morality weak while I consider those with honor strong. I'd like to see more opinions on morality vs honor. What's the difference? What's superior? Discuss.

How exactly do you ever make a decision without any idea about right and wrong? 'Amorality' is a myth, unless you're some kind of machine, which actually seems quite likely seeing as you're such a cold-hearted motherf*cker. I mean damn, that's icy.

To do something for the sake of your honour is to do something to avoid shame. That is really quite weak, is it not?

I'd say altruism is a myth. People give to charity because "doing good" makes them feel good or because they think karma or God will reward them. Honor has nothing to do with avoiding shame. I think honor I like love and it can't be properly defined. Us people that grew up in a culture of honor knows what it means, but others never will.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 5:01:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 4:12:32 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 7/6/2014 3:44:19 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 7/4/2014 2:44:51 AM, Wylted wrote:
The definitions don't really capture the meanings of these words enough. Honor seems like it has to do with high self esteem or placing a high value on one's self, while morality suggests a feeling of right or wrong.

I've always felt like morality was a childish concept. A child doesn't steal a cookie because it's wrong, while a man doesn't do it, because he has honor.

I consider myself an amoral person, because I don't have a an altruistic bone in me. When I do the right thing, you can bet it has nothing to do with my sense of right or wrong and everything to do with my code of honor.

I consider people with morality weak while I consider those with honor strong. I'd like to see more opinions on morality vs honor. What's the difference? What's superior? Discuss.

How exactly do you ever make a decision without any idea about right and wrong? 'Amorality' is a myth, unless you're some kind of machine, which actually seems quite likely seeing as you're such a cold-hearted motherf*cker. I mean damn, that's icy.

To do something for the sake of your honour is to do something to avoid shame. That is really quite weak, is it not?

I'd say altruism is a myth. People give to charity because "doing good" makes them feel good or because they think karma or God will reward them. Honor has nothing to do with avoiding shame. I think honor I like love and it can't be properly defined. Us people that grew up in a culture of honor knows what it means, but others never will.

Amorality has absolutely nothing to do with altruism. I think everyone always acts in pursuit of what they want, it just happens that sometimes they want good things to happen to others. I'm pretty sure the honour you're admiring is some kind of Nietzschean morality where you concern yourself with becoming great in your own eyes, or something.