Main > The Round Table
Discussion: Honor
Lord Dane:
People who have no concept of honor (by not serving others) are not ones to judge those who do serve with it. Granted, we all have our own definitions of how we perceive the notion, but it is in the character of the person, the meaning of their words, and the actions they take that make them honorable. Those with honor, get my respect and gratitude. Those without it are not worthy to mention and deserve no attention.
Sir Martyn:
Excellent discussion here.
It seems to me that the ensuing contrast/comparison on the concept of honor and how that has changed (or not, depending on your view) given the shifting cultural paradigms and principally the once unbreakable linkage between religion and chivalric code -- and what the implications are for those of us now trying to define its "reinterpretation" if you will, is fascinating.
For someone interested in the topic and also working in a professional federal service called to serve the policies of all administrations with equal loyalty and dedication -- and what are the options should you find yourself on a personal level irreconciled to them -- (and raised Catholic in the south!) these all remain very real questions. It's been great to review your discussion.
For me, honor can be an empty, self-obsessed concept if not also linked to dedication, determination and integrity - the grit needed to uphold code because it is right even at the risk of self (offering that drink to your fallen enemy who could strike at you). Yet the other side of the coin must also be the willingness to stand up others - even our superiors - who would claim to speak for that same code if they be in the wrong.
Good stuff.
B. Patricius:
--- Quote from: Gareyth on 2013-07-17, 23:03:13 ---For me, honor can be an empty, self-obsessed concept if not also linked to dedication, determination and integrity - the grit needed to uphold code because it is right even at the risk of self (offering that drink to your fallen enemy who could strike at you). Yet the other side of the coin must also be the willingness to stand up others - even our superiors - who would claim to speak for that same code if they be in the wrong.
Good stuff.
--- End quote ---
QFT
I often think that most people today consider the more vain version of honor rather than the selfless serving version when they argue against it.
Grand Master Garland:
Garyeth, You identify a clear problem as to how one retains personal honor (as well as employment) when faced with an unethical or immoral directive. In the healthcare profession we never considered that such problems would arise but now we see them nearly every day because of the “Affordable Care Act”. Our first maxim had been Primum non nocere, "first, do no harm", but now we see directives transforming that maxim to “do nothing”. The shift from traditional Christian spiritual direction regarding morals and ethics is telling.
At one time I clearly experienced what you describe as an “empty, self-obsessed” sense of honor. I didn't like it and eventually chose the traditional Catholic Deposit of Faith to fill that void. It provided the answers to the “very real questions” you mention. For our Knights that “linkage between religion and chivalric code” has never changed and for us the Code of Christian Chivalry covers all aspects of honor:
“Thou shalt believe the teaching of the one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and obey all her admonitions. Thou shalt defend the Church. Thou shalt show regard for the weak and defend them. Thou shalt love the country of thy birth. Thou shalt never retreat before the Infidel. Thou shalt never tell a lie and shalt stay true to thy word. Thou shalt be generous and charitable. Thou shalt champion Goodness and Justice against evil and iniquity.”
This code has served Western Civilization well for a thousand years, regardless of what some say. And though the fashion today is for individual interpretation and “choice” in matters of ethics, morals, and even concepts like honor and chivalry, I fear for our descendants who may, as a consequence of that secular fashion, live in a much less charitable world.
Sir Edward:
I thought I might add a question to this thread, to see if anyone would like to discuss it further. I encourage our newer forum members to read from the start, and contribute if they would like to do so.
When is honor served best, in strictly adhering to your principles, or bending them (perhaps even breaking them entirely) for the greater good? Is there ever a time when you need to put your own honor aside in order for lives to be saved, or justice to prevail?
These are meant to be tough questions. No right or wrong answers, just a topic of thought and discussion.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version