I agree with this On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 2:06 AM, [email protected] < [email protected]> wrote:
> > So once again then honour is subjective and perhaps culturaly > relative? Honour as respect yes I think I can get that one. When I > am respectful towards my grandfather it is to honour(respect) the > wisdom of his years, not nesacerily though the man himself, but his > knowledge due to the amont of life he has lived and experiance he has > had. > > On 25 Sep, 17:42, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > I think when we give honor, we give respect for what we find to be > > honorable, praiseworthy, of high regard, admirable, appreciable. When > > we have honor, or are honorable, we act with integrity and purity of > > motive. > > > > On Sep 25, 11:47 am, "[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 - > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
