Morality vs. Honor

[KamikazeCommie]

I'm a writing an essay on morality and honor.... and i was curious about your guys' thoughts.... on the topic of honor and morality.... this is the essay question...

"We often consider the 'honor' or 'morality' of a possible action in deciding how we ought to behave. Many times, a course of action will seem both morally right and honorable. At other times, however, considerations of honor and conscience may pull us in opposite directions. What are the differences between codes of honor and of morality as guides to right behavior, and which should have the greater weight with us in a difficult situation?"

Yea i just wanted to know what your guys thoughts were. I'm thinking about including a opinion survey/interview type thingy in there as examples in my essay.. i hope you guys don't mind... hehe

[Forever a Legend]

both are illogical. whoever wins is right. whoever loses is wrong.

[KamikazeCommie]

hmmmm... that seems very Machivellian.. the ends justify the means type deal....

but but the question doesn't deal with whether something works or not.... but rather morality and honor....

ok here is a situation that doesn't deal with whether something works:

say you have a friend who you know smokes pot, but you know that your friend's parents don't know about it... You want him to stop smoking, b/c you see that it has consumed his life and does nothing but waste his money and free time on marijuana.... Yet, you don't want to tell his parents, b/c of the unspoken rule: never rat on your friend... So should you keep your honor by observing the unspoken rule, or should you tell his parents to help him quit, which is the right thing to do morally.... (oh and trying to explain to him that he shouldn't smoke is out of the question.... say you've already tried and he just ignores you on that matter)


My take- i think one should tell the friends parents... although a code of honor is broken, the end result will benifit the friend more....

what do you think?

[BobCat]

One cannot be truly honorable without being moral.

However, one can be moral without being honorable.

There are those who stand up for morality, and get no honor - that is because they are surrounded by the dishonorable and immoral

[KamikazeCommie]

Originally Posted by BobCat

One cannot be truly honorable without being moral.

However, one can be moral without being honorable.

There are those who stand up for morality, and get no honor - that is because they are surrounded by the dishonorable and immoral

not necissarily... you can be honorable without morality....

in the past honor has always delt with reputation... and such.... while morality generally deals with the right and wrong....

the mafia and gangs have a concept of honor.... but that doesn't mean what they do is moral....

Mafias restore their family honor by avenging the family: often by means of murder.... murder is generally not moral....

oh and bobcat... vote!

[BobCat]

Originally Posted by KamikazeCommie

not necissarily... you can be honorable without morality....

in the past honor has always delt with reputation... and such.... while morality generally deals with the right and wrong....

the mafia and gangs have a concept of honor.... but that doesn't mean what they do is moral....

Notice how I worded it?

One cannot be TRULY honorable without being moral.

"Honor" is relative, according to the rules of the group you're with. Your mafia example is one of them.

True honor is inseperable from morality.

And I did vote: Morality. And moving this to polls forum.

Screw honor. I wouldve said morality but there's no such thing. Yano what honor, morality, and the easter bunny have in common? THEY DON'T EXIST!

[KamikazeCommie]

to bobcat:

but then you would need a definate set of universal morals to judge everyone in order to define true honor..... who or what to gets to decide that ? (which i suppose is a principle of relativism which i know you dislike )

but if one claims that honor and morality is inseperable, wouldn't that make the question unanswerable? =P

and to nero:

I would define morality as one's own personal belief about what is right and wrong.... so morality only exists in your own brain... (unless your a man of no morals of course then yes morality doesn't exist hehe )

[BobCat]

Originally Posted by KamikazeCommie

to bobcat:

but then you would need a definate set of universal morals to judge everyone in order to define true honor..... who or what to gets to decide that ? (which i suppose is a principle of relativism which i know you dislike )

But that's the thing: Relativism is illogical.

Relativism says that there are no absolutes. The problem is that is claim of absolutes, so therefore logically, the claim self-destructs.

There is an absolute set of morality. Just because not everyone knows what it is, does not mean it does not exist. Does the law of gravity cease to exist simply because not everyone knows what it is or refuses to acknowledges its existence?

And who decides what is the set of true morality? *BobCat looks up*

but if one claims that honor and morality is inseperable, wouldn't that make the question unanswerable? =P

I claim TRUE honor and morality is inseperable. The example of the mafia is an example of false honor.

[KamikazeCommie]

Originally Posted by BobCat

But that's the thing: Relativism is illogical.

Relativism says that there are no absolutes. The problem is that is claim of absolutes, so therefore logically, the claim self-destructs.

There is an absolute set of morality. Just because not everyone knows what it is, does not mean it does not exist. Does the law of gravity cease to exist simply because not everyone knows what it is or refuses to acknowledges its existence?

And who decides what is the set of true morality? *BobCat looks up*

who said that i or relativism was right? relativism is my opinion... hehehe.... its just what i think.... its my take on the world....

and who said the law of gravity is true.... it could just be a code in the Matrix.... or a figment of your imagination (maybe its all a dream, bobcat)... nothing is definate.... we just have to make assumptions in life in order to live......

remeber that i am a athiest, btw... i think that God is an invention of man used to interpret the world around them.....

*sigh* i'm straying off topic =P

I claim TRUE honor and morality is inseperable. The example of the mafia is an example of false honor.

but that still doesn't answer the question.... what should one turn to as a guide for conduct.... Morality or Honor? or were you the one who voted morality, too?

[BobCat]

Originally Posted by KamikazeCommie

who said that i or relativism was right? relativism is my opinion... hehehe.... its just what i think.... its my take on the world....

As I said, relativism is not logical. In order to believe in relativism, you have to suspend logic. If you are not sure you are right about relativism, perhaps you need to re-evaluate.

and who said the law of gravity is true.... it could just be a code in the Matrix.... or a figment of your imagination (maybe its all a dream, bobcat)... nothing is definate.... we just have to make assumptions in life in order to live......

Let's put that to the test.

One big pile of doggie doo. Jump in naked. Stay there for about an hour.

What? You don't wanna do that? Why not? Sounds like something DEFINITE there!

remeber that i am a athiest, btw... i think that God is an invention of man used to interpret the world around them.....

Actually, atheism is an invention of men

but that still doesn't answer the question.... what should one turn to as a guide for conduct.... Morality or Honor? or were you the one who voted morality, too?

I was the one who voted morality.

And I said: there is a guide for conduct. There is an absolute morality. Just because there are people who don't know what it is does not mean it does not exist.

Do you exist? Well, there's a lot of people who don't know you exist, so according to relativism, you don't exist.

Truth is not defined by how many people accept it.

[KamikazeCommie]

hmm in my ealier post, i have forgotten to state that, i am not 100% sure that i am a relativist..... but i have similar thoughts.... the reson why i say that is b/c the term relativism is new to me, therefore, i cannot say that i am a relatvist b/c i must read up on the philosophy of relativism.... (but skimming the Wikipedia article, i see that it is quite similar to my beliefs that i have developed over the years... i just didn't know about the term relativism...)

with that said, here is my response:

Everybody has their own definition of right and wrong, therefore the concept of a universal truth only exists in the minds of some or if not all individuals. No one is right or wrong, since right and wrong depends on the individual.

And yes... this theory can be wrong... according to others... and not the definate universal truth according to relavatism (to the best of my knowledge)...

therefore, like a mathematical theroem, we must make assumptions (the if part of theorems... i.e. if x does not equal to zero, then yada yada yada ) We must make assumtions that things are true in order to live, believe, and do things... Otherwise there will be no base on which to build off of....

Therefore, i must assume that my theory is the universal truth in order to work. In other words, i must assume that concept of what is morally right and wrong depends on the individual, except for my belief of this theory, in which everything is based off of....

Originally Posted by BobCat

If you are not sure you are right about relativism, perhaps you need to re-evaluate.

about re-evaluating my beliefs... i do it all the time! as i live through life, i am constantly learing new ideas and things. I process them and add it to my beliefs.... so in short, i am constatly re-evaluating my beliefs... it is a never ending process... the human mind is constantly changing....

Let's put that to the test.
One big pile of doggie doo. Jump in naked. Stay there for about an hour.

What? You don't wanna do that? Why not? Sounds like something DEFINITE there!

hmm you didn't my point there... are you familiar with the idea that it is possible that you are the only thing that exists, and everything else is a creation of you're imagination? And that in the real world, in which you are unaware of has no gravity? it is a possiblity... probably highly unlikely but it still exists... nothing is truely definate.... we must make many assumptions to build off of in life..... it is the only way to live......

Actually, atheism is an invention of men

I would beg to differ.... of course.... i don't know if you remember but i posted my belief about religion in the perfection thread.... but lets just agree to disagree in such a matter... it is pointless to debate on this subject... since niether of us will bend....

Do you exist? Well, there's a lot of people who don't know you exist, so according to relativism, you don't exist.

Maybe i do maybe i don't... i could be a figment of your imagination.... how do you know i truely exist... How do i know that you exist? what is real? We must make assumptions....

I was the one who voted morality.

And I said: there is a guide for conduct. There is an absolute morality. Just because there are people who don't know what it is does not mean it does not exist.

Do you exist? Well, there's a lot of people who don't know you exist, so according to relativism, you don't exist.

Truth is not defined by how many people accept it.

hmmm so we agree and dissagree.... hehe... i am the other who voted for morality so far.... I believe that it is better to follow one's conscience rather than to appease society's criteria for honor.....

It's interesting how things work... we disagree on many aspects of the subject, yet we end up w/ the same conclusion



Bleh i'm really off topic agian