Then I guess I have to belive that honour is worthless if what it is can and does change not only from sociaty to sociaty, nor individual to individual but also family to family. I mean I can't seen any worth in such a fluid idea.
What if the son has a differant sense of honour from the father, what actions are both honour bound to take, can there be reconsiliation I wonder? On 28 Sep, 14:08, Vam <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, Lee, it involves the same of what I've said earlier : > > " ( Family ) Honour is what you feel when you look at yourself and > feel your commitment to all the duties ( ethics ) and morals you ( and > your family traditionally ) identify with." > > On Sep 28, 2:02 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > Okay Vam so it seems that you see things slightly differant from Pat > > and stress instead of social ethics personal morality and the will to > > 'walk the walk' as it where. That is intersting and marries up with > > what I was speaking of a few weeks back about living the non- > > hypocritical life. > > > This is intersing as one of the things I am confussed about is family > > honour, I don't even really know what is meant when I hear that. Any > > thoughts on that one Vam? > > > On 25 Sep, 17:30, Vam <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > If you spare me from your subsequent grilling, Lee, here it is : > > > > Honour is what you feel when you look at yourself and feel your > > > commitment to all the duties ( ethics ) and morals you identify with. > > > > Post facto, honour is the feeling that arises when you judge your > > > actual conduct in thought, speech or deed, in the light of your those > > > very commitment to such duties or ethics and morals as are pertinent > > > ( to the conduct under your own judgement ). > > > > On Sep 25, 8:47 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > Umm interesting Pat, I mean the way you see ethics and morality. I > > > > ways though that Morality was subjective both on a personal level and > > > > a social level, whilst ethics was confined to 'doing that which is > > > > right' > > > > > So Morality is the 'thought' of right and wrong, whilst ethics is the > > > > 'action' of doing right? > > > > > What say others about that one? > > > > > On 25 Sep, 16:27, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On 25 Sep, 13:55, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Umm 'doing the right thing' and 'more to do with ethics than morals' > > > > > > would suggest that Honour is bound up in ethics. Just an aside then > > > > > > if ethics is concerend with doing what is right, and morals are > > > > > > concerned with questions of what is right or wrong, then can it be > > > > > > true that ethics are as subjective as morality? > > > > > > As I've said before, ethics is a societal thing and morals are > > > > > personal. Ethics are subjective to a society and morals are > > > > > subjective to an individual. Right and wrong, whether perceived by a > > > > > society or an individual are still just perceptions based on a > > > > > profound lack of information (in that every act we perform has > > > > > reactions that carry on from that point forward and, as we have no > > > > > access to the future, we should endeavour to ensure that our actions > > > > > should lead to predominately positive results.). And, it might seem > > > > > contradictory in light of our free will conversations, but, I think > > > > > that, if the person about to commit an honour killing has the > > > > > opportunity to speculate that they don't HAVE to kill, then they > > > > > should feel obliged NOT to, if for no other reason than that they may > > > > > not know the full circumstances regarding the original killing (which > > > > > MAY have been in self-defense) and are, by taking up their 'right', > > > > > may, actually, be giving the other family the true 'right' to return > > > > > like for like. And the cycle continues. It's for reasons like THIS > > > > > that I feel the ability (and opportunity) to speculate about an > > > > > unknown future is just as important (and still makes us liable) as > > > > > having free will in its usual sense. > > > > > > > Aside over. > > > > > > > More I need more people, I'm trying to understand this concept of > > > > > > honour. Honour killings for example strike me as well not really > > > > > > honourable at all, the honour of the family, what does that actualy > > > > > > mean? > > > > > > Honour killings were based on the old 'Eye for an Eye' rule, > > > > > which, of course, meant not more than an eye for an eye... So, if > > > > > someone killed a member of your family, the code allowed the injured > > > > > family to kill a member of the originally offending family to offset > > > > > their murder. However, to those that abide by that code, I would > > > > > remind them that "'Vengeance is mine', saith the Lord" and let God > > > > > deal with it, as only He has access to ALL the information regarding > > > > > it. So, whilst the law (or code) may permit the retaliation, it would > > > > > be more 'Godlike' if the offended family acted more godly and > > > > > exercised their mercy and let God dole out the judgements, rather than > > > > > assume that their retaliation IS God's judgement. > > > > > > > On 25 Sep, 13:32, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Well, an individual must abide by the code of his/her culture > > > > > > > although > > > > > > > one can walk away from dishonour and generally pay a steep price > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > it. I think it means doing the right thing despite the cost. > > > > > > > > On Sep 25, 6:48 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 25 Sep, 12:13, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > It seems an easy enough question. What is it, what does it > > > > > > > > > mean to > > > > > > > > > have it, what acts are honourable and what not? > > > > > > > > > It mostly depends on culture. It was honourable to the Aztecs > > > > > > > > to be > > > > > > > > sacrificed to Quetzalcoatl, I doubt many today would feel the > > > > > > > > same. > > > > > > > > Thieves, at one time, had a code of conduct, making some > > > > > > > > theiving > > > > > > > > honourable and other thieving not honourable. Seppuku > > > > > > > > (harakiri) is > > > > > > > > considered honourable in Japanese culture, but viewed as simple > > > > > > > > suicide and damnable by the West. Roughly, honour (like good > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > evil) is, like its opposite, shame, an opinion/perception and is > > > > > > > > relative.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
