Honor

Society has lost it's sense of honor. Not only in government, but in the everyday community as well. People have no integrity anymore.

Honor is a credible reputation gained from one's integrity
Integrity is the quality of having strong moral principles
Morality is a particular system of values and principles of conduct

There are 3 main types of Morality, and therefore 3 main types of integrity; there is personal morality, social morality, and cosmic morality. Personal morality is a set of values held by the individual, social morality is a set of values held by a group or culture, and cosmic morality is a set of values which are instinctively/universally recognized.

There are 2 types of honor; honor in life, and honor in death. One could live an honorable life, and one can die an honorable death. How one lives and dies determines how honorable that person was.

In order to be honorable one must uphold personal, social, and cosmic integrity. Simply having personal integrity does not mean one is honorable, nor is someone honorable if they simply have social integrity. To be honorable one must respect all 3 moral codes.

A man who cannot respect his own principles, cannot be respected by others.
A man who cannot respect the principles of society, cannot be respected by others.
A man who cannot respect the principles instinctive in man's conscience, cannot be respected by others.

Cosmic integrity outweighs social integrity, and social integrity outweighs personal integrity; however one must be true to their personal convictions.
One can follow the principles of society, while advocating/fighting for a change in those principles; this one example of how one can maintain social and personal integrity when social morality conflicts with personal morality. However this is not the only way one can go about it.

Honorable = Honorable Life + Honorable Death
Honorable Life = Cosmic Integrity + Social Integrity + Personal Integrity
Honorable Death = Cosmic Integrity + Social Integrity + Personal Integrity

Honorable = (Living in accordance with inherent principles + Living in accordance with societal principles + Living in accordance with personal principles) + (Dying in accordance with inherent principles + Dying in accordance with societal principles + Dying in accordance with personal principles)

Laws are an established set of rules; laws are based on morals, but laws can still be immoral. Unlike honor, which requires one have personal, social, and cosmic integrity, laws establish a set of rules based on either personal, social, or cosmic integrity, while ignoring the other moral codes. A law can be rooted in any of the 3 moral codes, while disregarding others. Hence Laws can be both moral and immoral. If a law is socially moral, but cosmically and personally immoral, than the law is immoral. If a law is personally moral, but socially and cosmically immoral than the law is immoral. If the law is personally, and socially moral, but cosmically immoral, than the law is both moral and immoral. If the law is cosmically, socially, and personally moral than the law is moral.
More often than not laws will be immoral, or at the very least both moral and immoral. Because of this, and honorable government would strive to follow their personal convictions, societal values, and cosmic principles; if the law contradicts any of the 3 moral codes, and honorable politician would vote against, or veto the potential law.

rights are based in law, but not morality, as laws are not always morally sound. As William Safire once said, "The right to do something does not mean that doing it is right." If I have a cemetery on my property, I have the right to piss in the cemetery, but it would be morally wrong for me to do so. Simply because you have the right to do something does not make doing it an honorable thing to do. I have the right to cuss at people, but that does not make it honorable.

The Fool: I could think of better

If only it were true.

Oh please, everyone knows it's spelled honour!

I love how you automatically assume objective and axiomatic "social integrity" and "personal integrity" laws without any justification.

Also, what the fvck is cosmic integrity?

lolz

Being nice to the universe?

At 6/26/2012 2:17:52 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Also, what the fvck is cosmic integrity?

lolz

Being nice to the universe?

When are nice to your neighbors here on Earth.
Everyone reaps what they sow.
No bad deed goes unpunished...........

People no longer duel. It would be cool if you could still challenge people to duels.

At 6/26/2012 2:28:39 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
People no longer duel. It would be cool if you could still challenge people to duels.

I challenge you to single combat.

There's an interesting dichotomy between "shame cultures" and "guilt cultures". Our culture is a "guilt culture". What you are describing often belongs to "shame cultures", which are usually older.

At 6/26/2012 2:38:45 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
There's an interesting dichotomy between "shame cultures" and "guilt cultures". Our culture is a "guilt culture". What you are describing often belongs to "shame cultures", which are usually older.

That's interesting. Care to elaborate further?

At 6/26/2012 2:39:52 PM, MrBrooks wrote:

At 6/26/2012 2:38:45 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
There's an interesting dichotomy between "shame cultures" and "guilt cultures". Our culture is a "guilt culture". What you are describing often belongs to "shame cultures", which are usually older.

That's interesting. Care to elaborate further?

In shame cultures, all feelings of pride and unhappiness (if one does something wrong) is external, as in it depends on the community. This is why honor is important in those communities; people depend on what other people think about them in order to be happy. In guilt cultures, pride and unhappiness at doing something wrong are internal. Honor isn't as important because people don't care about what the community thinks.

At 6/26/2012 2:17:52 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Also, what the fvck is cosmic integrity?

lolz

Being nice to the universe?

obviously you didn't read the OP, as it's defined and explained in the OP.

At 6/26/2012 2:46:45 PM, royalpaladin wrote:

At 6/26/2012 2:39:52 PM, MrBrooks wrote:

At 6/26/2012 2:38:45 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
There's an interesting dichotomy between "shame cultures" and "guilt cultures". Our culture is a "guilt culture". What you are describing often belongs to "shame cultures", which are usually older.

That's interesting. Care to elaborate further?

In shame cultures, all feelings of pride and unhappiness (if one does something wrong) is external, as in it depends on the community. This is why honor is important in those communities; people depend on what other people think about them in order to be happy. In guilt cultures, pride and unhappiness at doing something wrong are internal. Honor isn't as important because people don't care about what the community thinks.

Shame has to do with the lack of creditability due to corruption; in other words your lack of integrity has made your untrustworthy.
Guilt has to do with with making the individual regret being corrupt; in other words your lack of integrity has made you feel bad.

One could feel guilt from shame.

At 6/26/2012 3:15:13 PM, DanT wrote:

At 6/26/2012 2:17:52 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Also, what the fvck is cosmic integrity?

lolz

Being nice to the universe?

obviously you didn't read the OP, as it's defined and explained in the OP.

"cosmic morality is a set of values which are instinctively/universally recognized."

Wanna be a bit more specific? Perhaps you could even justify why there are these instinctively/universally recognized morals?

At 6/26/2012 3:41:44 PM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 6/26/2012 3:15:13 PM, DanT wrote:

At 6/26/2012 2:17:52 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Also, what the fvck is cosmic integrity?

lolz

Being nice to the universe?

obviously you didn't read the OP, as it's defined and explained in the OP.

"cosmic morality is a set of values which are instinctively/universally recognized."

Wanna be a bit more specific? Perhaps you could even justify why there are these instinctively/universally recognized morals?

They are a natural instincts on how to react to a certain situation. An example would be murder; humans instinctively consider killing another member of our society morally wrong. Let me make it clear, because the last time I said this, no-one listened and I hate to repeat myself every other post; I am talking about morals (a set of values) which are instinctive (prompted by an inborn pattern responsive to specific stimuli), I'm not talking about actions (the process of doing something) which are instinctive (prompted by an inborn pattern responsive to specific stimuli).

According to a paper by Ni Liangkang, professor of Department of Philosophy of SYSU and supervisor of doctoral students.
"Moral Instinct and Moral Judgment

Abstract: Human beings' moral life can be divided into two forms, one based
on moral instincts and the other on moral judgments. The former is carried on
without deliberation, while the latter relies upon valuations and judgments. The
two can ultimately be viewed as man's innate moral nature and acquired moral
conventions. Theoretically, preference for the former will lead to naturalism and
for the latter to culturalism, but this is the reality of man's moral life. Moreover,
there may be a parallel relation between the moral structure of human life and the
grammatical structure of human language."
http://www.europhilosophie.eu...

At 6/26/2012 4:13:06 PM, DanT wrote:

At 6/26/2012 3:41:44 PM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 6/26/2012 3:15:13 PM, DanT wrote:

At 6/26/2012 2:17:52 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Also, what the fvck is cosmic integrity?

lolz

Being nice to the universe?

obviously you didn't read the OP, as it's defined and explained in the OP.

"cosmic morality is a set of values which are instinctively/universally recognized."

Wanna be a bit more specific? Perhaps you could even justify why there are these instinctively/universally recognized morals?

They are a natural instincts on how to react to a certain situation. An example would be murder; humans instinctively consider killing another member of our society morally wrong. Let me make it clear, because the last time I said this, no-one listened and I hate to repeat myself every other post; I am talking about morals (a set of values) which are instinctive (prompted by an inborn pattern responsive to specific stimuli), I'm not talking about actions (the process of doing something) which are instinctive (prompted by an inborn pattern responsive to specific stimuli).

So all humans beings are objectively against murder? Somehow, considering historical events, that really doesn't play out very well. Objective morality is found intrinsic within everybody and therefore moral judgements should be almost universal from culture to culture.

Obviously, this is completely false. Some cultures promoted murder as a recreational sport (Ancient Romans), others massacred for the pettiest reasons (Chinese Dynasties), others organized huge famines that starved millions of people (USSR), others killed millions of people in concentration camps (Nazi Germany).

Did all of these people just randomly stray off their intrinsic values?

More dumb pieces of the big anthropogenic machine. It wasn't hubristic enough to separate "Man" from "animals", and "culture" from "nature". We also had to dress ourselves up with fancy made-up stuff like dignity, respect, duty, honor... Blech. When, I wonder, will our species get over its vanity and stop trying to invent special, qualified ontological categories to put itself in?

but humies is da bestest!

At 6/26/2012 6:16:15 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
but humies is da bestest!

Dat human exceptionalism.

At 6/26/2012 6:13:11 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
More dumb pieces of the big anthropogenic machine. It wasn't hubristic enough to separate "Man" from "animals", and "culture" from "nature". We also had to dress ourselves up with fancy made-up stuff like dignity, respect, duty, honor... Blech. When, I wonder, will our species get over its vanity and stop trying to invent special, qualified ontological categories to put itself in?

THIS. You seem to think exactly like I do.

At 6/26/2012 6:20:56 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 6/26/2012 6:13:11 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
More dumb pieces of the big anthropogenic machine. It wasn't hubristic enough to separate "Man" from "animals", and "culture" from "nature". We also had to dress ourselves up with fancy made-up stuff like dignity, respect, duty, honor... Blech. When, I wonder, will our species get over its vanity and stop trying to invent special, qualified ontological categories to put itself in?

THIS. You seem to think exactly like I do.

Well, you only really have this one isolated, non-contextual data point. But sure. :P

At 6/26/2012 6:26:01 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

At 6/26/2012 6:20:56 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 6/26/2012 6:13:11 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
More dumb pieces of the big anthropogenic machine. It wasn't hubristic enough to separate "Man" from "animals", and "culture" from "nature". We also had to dress ourselves up with fancy made-up stuff like dignity, respect, duty, honor... Blech. When, I wonder, will our species get over its vanity and stop trying to invent special, qualified ontological categories to put itself in?

THIS. You seem to think exactly like I do.

Well, you only really have this one isolated, non-contextual data point. But sure. :P

no, there's also moral nihilism. Determinism, I think. And the fact that life is pretty meaningless and human's aren't that important. Also, atheism.

At 6/26/2012 6:20:56 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 6/26/2012 6:13:11 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
More dumb pieces of the big anthropogenic machine. It wasn't hubristic enough to separate "Man" from "animals", and "culture" from "nature". We also had to dress ourselves up with fancy made-up stuff like dignity, respect, duty, honor... Blech. When, I wonder, will our species get over its vanity and stop trying to invent special, qualified ontological categories to put itself in?

THIS. You seem to think exactly like I do.

I highly doubt that.

At 6/26/2012 6:31:01 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 6/26/2012 6:26:01 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

At 6/26/2012 6:20:56 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 6/26/2012 6:13:11 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
More dumb pieces of the big anthropogenic machine. It wasn't hubristic enough to separate "Man" from "animals", and "culture" from "nature". We also had to dress ourselves up with fancy made-up stuff like dignity, respect, duty, honor... Blech. When, I wonder, will our species get over its vanity and stop trying to invent special, qualified ontological categories to put itself in?

THIS. You seem to think exactly like I do.

Well, you only really have this one isolated, non-contextual data point. But sure. :P

no, there's also moral nihilism.

And yet, I have an ethics.

Determinism, I think.

K.

And the fact that life is pretty meaningless and human's aren't that important.

Well, objectively, duh. Subjectively, though, that doesn't matter, cuz we assign value to things anyway.

Also, atheism.

Epistemic nihilism--I'm an agnostic, not an atheist.

Also, counterpoints from Big Issues:

Obama: Pro
Animal Rights: Pro
Death Penalty: Pro
Euthanasia: Con
Gun Rights: Pro
Medicaid and Medicare: Pro
Minimum Wage: Pro
National Health Care: Pro
Progressive Tax: Pro
Redistribution: Pro
Social Programs: Pro
Social Security: Pro
Stimulus Spending: Pro
United Nations: Pro
Welfare: Pro

I don't think we're even remotely alike, turns out. Unless you're trolling hard because of that masquerade thing.

At 6/26/2012 6:33:57 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

At 6/26/2012 6:31:01 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 6/26/2012 6:26:01 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

At 6/26/2012 6:20:56 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 6/26/2012 6:13:11 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
More dumb pieces of the big anthropogenic machine. It wasn't hubristic enough to separate "Man" from "animals", and "culture" from "nature". We also had to dress ourselves up with fancy made-up stuff like dignity, respect, duty, honor... Blech. When, I wonder, will our species get over its vanity and stop trying to invent special, qualified ontological categories to put itself in?

THIS. You seem to think exactly like I do.

Well, you only really have this one isolated, non-contextual data point. But sure. :P

no, there's also moral nihilism.

And yet, I have an ethics.

subjective ethics? So do I

Also, atheism.

Epistemic nihilism--I'm an agnostic, not an atheist.

What's the difference? I was agnostic until I realized that it doesn't make sense. Either you know or you don't know. I don't believe that most atheists or theists claim any kind of definitive knowledge. They just believe.

So, you either believe or you don't believe. If you believe, then you're a theist. If not, as per the law of excluded middle, you're an atheist.

At 6/26/2012 6:37:45 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Also, counterpoints from Big Issues:

Obama: Pro
Animal Rights: Pro
Death Penalty: Pro
Euthanasia: Con
Gun Rights: Pro
Medicaid and Medicare: Pro
Minimum Wage: Pro
National Health Care: Pro
Progressive Tax: Pro
Redistribution: Pro
Social Programs: Pro
Social Security: Pro
Stimulus Spending: Pro
United Nations: Pro
Welfare: Pro

I don't think we're even remotely alike, turns out. Unless you're trolling hard because of that masquerade thing.

That's Politically, and since you're a moral nihilist, your political opinions are subjective. I'm talking about your objective philosophical claims

At 6/26/2012 6:38:00 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 6/26/2012 6:33:57 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

At 6/26/2012 6:31:01 PM, 000ike wrote:
no, there's also moral nihilism.

And yet, I have an ethics.

subjective ethics? So do I

'Cept you don't know anything 'bout my ethics. :)

Also, atheism.

Epistemic nihilism--I'm an agnostic, not an atheist.

What's the difference? I was agnostic until I realized that it doesn't make sense. Either you know or you don't know.

"Agnosticism doesn't make sense..." "Either you know or you don't know."

Since agnosticism is the latter, I don't really know what you're saying.

I don't believe that most atheists or theists claim any kind of definitive knowledge. They just believe.

I think they do claim knowledge, at least sometimes, but are wrong to do that.

So, you either believe or you don't believe. If you believe, then you're a theist. If not, as per the law of excluded middle, you're an atheist.

Not really.

It's dumb semantics. If you define atheist as "anyone who doesn't believe in God", regardless of whether they take a stand against it or just admit to knowing nothing, then whatever. But the point is that, under all the shifty labels that people try to stick on each other, I make an epistemic commitment to not knowing anything--not a metaphysical commitment to God not existing. That's the difference.

God isn't even in my ontology, really. It's like asking whether there are shmorkles. I don't know what the hell that even refers to, so it's not like I can take a metaphysical stand on whether they're things. Similarly, it's not just that I can't know whether God exists--I can't even know what that entity's properties are. So it's just vain and presumptuous to pretend to have enough information to make claims like hardline theists or atheists.

At 6/26/2012 6:40:10 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 6/26/2012 6:37:45 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Also, counterpoints from Big Issues:

Obama: Pro
Animal Rights: Pro
Death Penalty: Pro
Euthanasia: Con
Gun Rights: Pro
Medicaid and Medicare: Pro
Minimum Wage: Pro
National Health Care: Pro
Progressive Tax: Pro
Redistribution: Pro
Social Programs: Pro
Social Security: Pro
Stimulus Spending: Pro
United Nations: Pro
Welfare: Pro

I don't think we're even remotely alike, turns out. Unless you're trolling hard because of that masquerade thing.

That's Politically, and since you're a moral nihilist, your political opinions are subjective.

I'm talking about your objective philosophical claims.

Ever heard of political philosophy? It's a thing.