Honor? What is it?

truth
Quinn, thanks. That was wonderful. It shows that "honor" may be described in terms of values and that personal values and social values are clearly interrelated.
Letty, your anthropologist sister's statement--assuming you recall it accurately--about the projective nature of finding fault in others seems to be more of a psychological than an anthropological insight. It might be seen as "anthropological" if she is suggesting that "fault" in other cultures is definable in terms of THE OTHER'S violation of their society's mores, and that we will inevitably understand and evaluate their behavior in terms of OUR mores until the time comes that we understand theirs. When we observe the actions of others in an anthropological void (i.e., we do not know their point of view, the rules, values and ideals that guide their actions) we will inevitably PROJECT onto their actions OUR point of view. That's why anthropologists spend such a long time living among the people whose behavior they wish to understand or explain, to avoid such ethnocentric projections because they have come to understand the "rules" underlying the others' actions.

J.L. I simply added her credentials to impress you. (sure I did)...There are many subsets to anthropology as I am certain you are aware, and I really don't believe that we can live in one speciality without having it spill over into another. I take the time to listen to my sister, because she has such a multi-faceted background. As a matter of fact, I really didn't agree with her on that observation.

Sure. Honour - since we are pretty self-directed at work - means stepping up to take your fair share of the really hard cases - the ones everyone dreads having to see.

It means looking out for co-workers, and not slipping them cases you do not want, or that will be risky for them - eg, we are very careful, given that many of our clients have been severely traumatised by sexual abuse, to ensure that the guys on the team are protected from anyone who might make false allegations - this means the women take on lots more of the tough cases, but so it goes.

It means standing up to pressure from other agencies (we are a tertiary service) eg to see kids when they haven't done enough of their job yet (eg the child protection folk) to make therapy of any use, despite the often enormous hysteria and vilification this causes.

Recently, it meant refusing to see any more children from a particular foster care system, because ignorance and incompetence in that system meant that children in their care were being, effectively, severely re-abused. The management of that system is now out - going, going, gone...but the pressure was intense - fortunately, some private therapists joined us in our stand.

This is the sort of thing, I guess...

Oh, Lord, Deb. I don't know how you do it. It was tough enough trying to teach kids who didn't want to be taught, and fighting with the administration for the right to do it. No wonder Type II Diabetes is rampant in Australia.

Well, I'm gonna have a bourbon and orange juice and kick back.

Later all you honorable folks.

LOL..interesting since the films basis was honor...it was filled with a great amount of sex though...so, that could have been what you were focused on

Quinn, you funny thing. The last time that Letty focused on sex in a movie, was when she didn't know the difference between Hollywood and J. Arthur Rank. Loved Peter Cushing and Christoper Lee.

What an evening, Boston....laughin'

bourbon will do it to ya every time

Please, quinn. A mint julep, if you please. Never had one in my life and don't intend to...Goodnight, and think of all of us in Florida who must face another repeat of the last election.

Definitions of qualities will differ a lot from person to person. You may think acting ethical is honorable, and I may think not kicking a man in the teeth is honorable. So this is a hard question to answer, but this would be mine:

Not kicking a man is the teeth while he is down.

truth
What about the balls?

A kick in the balls while a man is down? Definitely not honorable

From what I've heard, kicking a man in the balls is one of the most painful injuries. Not good, ever.

I came across this essay on the difference between ethics and law. Letty, I hope you agree that it is relevant to the thread:



Stephen C. O'Connell
Justice of the Florida Supreme Court
Tallahassee

And - law and ethics can conflict. Then what does one do? Especially if, as in my case, one regards the rule of law to be essential. It may be honourable to refuse to accept the law? Then, two ethical principles may clash.

Good morning everyone.

I really think it behooves us all to think through these concepts ever so often. I lay awake most of the night wondering about exactly how each person fits within the scheme of social conscience and individual ideals. The very diversity of deciding among us what the word "honor" entails, has enabled me to understand better the conflict that must go on within the minds of humanity in general.

Diane, your contribution is quite relevant, because it brings into play the many definitions of one simple word.

Yes, Deb. We have seen law and ethics clash many times in our professions, and in our daily lives. Trying to balance and focus on what is best for all is often impossible, but as long as we can maintain some kernel of decency, then I think we begin to understand exactly the forces we are dealing with today.

I have to smile at J.L. and child of the Light. I suppose only men would be able to understand that type honor, but I think it's safe to say that many women are more vulnerable when kicked in the heart.

truth
Trust me, Letty. Men also suffer from kicks in the heart. The only reason we worry more about our balls than do women, is that only we have them.
Diane, I have difficulty discussing ethics with you while you're in your habit, but I do like the distinction: Law is designed (when it's enforceable, of course) to keep us from doing wrong while ethics encourages us to do good.
Isn't that the difference between morality and ethics as well. Notice that the Old Testament Decalogue consists only of negative "shalt not[s]".

The author of "Situation Ethics" (Joesph Fletcher) gives the following anecdote: "A friend of mine arrived in St. Louis just as a presidential campaign was ending, and the cab driver, not being above the battle, volunteered his testimony. 'I and my father and grandfather before me, and their fathers, have always been straight-ticket Republicans.' 'Ah,' said my friend, who is himself a Republican, 'I take it that means you will vote for Senator So-andSo.' 'No,' said the driver,' there are times when a man has to push his principles aside and do the right thing.' That St. Louis cabbie is this book's hero."

Oh, my Gawd, J.L. I love it! er, I mean your anecdote, not the other.