This is a mirror of the now defunct eesite ASOIAF webboard.

The discussions for G.R.R. Martin's awesome series "A Song of Ice and Fire" are now being held at: Current ASoIaF Webboard

You cannot post new messages to this board. Go to the Current ASoIaF Webboard for the most current discussions.

A Song of Ice and Fire / Other Topics / Honor

Next 20 Messages Newest Messages
Jeff
User ID: 8813033 		Jan 21st 10:24 PM
On another topic, Kevin said something I thought interesting. He said that the worth of a man or woman is whether or not he or she keeps their word. We've discussed Ned as being a man of honor, but what exactly does that mean? Is a man of honor one who always keeps his word? Or is it ever honorable to break ones word? It seems maybe Ned and Stannis could both claim to be honorable men but their views differ in many ways.
Can a person be both evil and honorable?

Dirjj
User ID: 9175333 		Jan 21st 10:52 PM
Sure, in D & D, there was a Lawful Evil character class. Does that count.

I suppose you can look no farther back than WWII. The Japenese hierachy (high command) and their generals claimed to follow the samurai code, where honor is everything, but they still managed to commmit numerous atrocities.

ab
Swithin
User ID: 9670323 		Jan 22nd 5:00 AM
Honor is simply the impulse to internalize the external world into ones motives. The desire no longer is "I want food" but "I wish to procure food in a way which treats people the way in which they demand to be treated." Objectively, honor is a bitch, a severe liability. However, if it is within one's nature to be honorable, if it makes one happy to act in such a way, then it is simply a choice. Considering that most of us seem to feel ourselves to be our brothers' keepers, most of us like the idea of honor, and therefor respect it in others. I'm cool with this.

To be honest, people who by nature feel obligation to those around them, for whichever reason, and yet commit dishonorable acts out of weakness, who cannot control their urges to match their judgment, piss me off much more than people who have decided that honor is not a real term to their system of thinking.

Overall, I like honor. It shows appreciation for beauty, a wish to preserve dignity which is so strong one cannot but choose to proactively discard choices which run the *risk* of harming another. A person who lives without honor is like an eating machine in my eyes, not truly appreciating that capacity which ultimately raises man from the level of dumb brute. Only on very rare occasions have I met someone who does not possess honor yet can be called fully sentient.
Relic
User ID: 9328513 		Jan 22nd 5:23 AM
Honor...by definition its honesty and respect in ones actions. But honesty and respect towards whom? Say a personal opinion is different than the one morally accepted. Who's opion do you stick to in that case to be considered honorable? What "truth" do you uphold? Honor is in the eye of the beholder. As is just about anything else on this planet.

Most look at Ned as an honorable man, yet he managed to do alot of harm in his lifetime too. He proabably never killed a man with his back turned, did harm to women and childer, and tried to be fair. But as we saw his actions had harmful reactions. Yet he is still honorable? Why? Because he stuck to his beliefs. Is his beliefs resembled yours he is honorable in your eyes. All about moral views in my opinion.
Min
User ID: 0074284 		Jan 22nd 10:03 AM
Honor, as most abstract things, is harder to grab than by definition. As is treason.

I believe that honor starts with _thinking_. I could not lightly or quickly say "this is honorable" without thinking about it first. For me, acting honorable means to think, in each new situation, about what would be honorable, what would be the right thing to do in just this situation. Honor cannot be defined by rules, and something that is honorable in one situation may be wrong in another. It means not clinging to principles, too, but to... well, _think_.

Clinging to moral principles could be a big mistake. Without thinking, a principle becomes a dogma, and a dogma can very quickly become a crime. Or an injustice. Ned surely was an honorable man. So was/is Stannis. But both made mistakes. Could you weigh the honor of the word you gave to your king against the word you gave to your loved ones? It is all about decisions, and about thinking.

To me, someone is honorable if he is not afraid to doubt his own moral views, to question himself, and to take a different decision. That requires courage. That is honor.
Alex
User ID: 9704903 		Jan 22nd 12:47 PM
Min, this is a very loose definition. Technicaly, what you said means that honor is the ability to be flexible and evaluative, and able to change (or bend) your moral guidelines and/or principles if the situation so requires ("making different decisions"). While it is undoubtedly very convenient, it can be interpreted in many different ways. I would venture another definition - honor is the ability to determine a set of moral and behavioral standards once and for all, which then must be followed to the letter, no matter what the cost. I an well aware how sinister that sounds, but that what honor was to, say, Ned. As far as I know, he broke it once, when giving a false confession before his execution. That honor would indeed require great courage to uphold, and ability to make sacrifices. I would further risk saying that morality has change so much nowadays, as well as the western way of thinking and setting priorities, that such views are virtually impossible to hold. And I think we are better for it.
Min
User ID: 0074284 		Jan 22nd 1:08 PM
Alex, I don't mean it in a convenient way. In the least. In fact, probing your moral standards is far more difficult and requires far more thought, courage and strength than clinging to them.

I do have principles, but in each new situation, I question them. Because situations are different. Because people are different. That is much harder than just saying: "I always did it that way - it is honorable just so". How do I know if it is right in this new situation? Clinging to principles, Alex, is the easy way.
Sphinx
User ID: 8882983 		Jan 22nd 1:29 PM
Honour is quite difficult to define. I think it has to do with respect and consideration in our actions towrads others. As Min says, I think it should be a subjective thing; rigid codes do not take into account changes in the world, and an action which gives due consideration and respect to others need not laid down at the start of a persons life, or that of a country or race for that matter.

Conflict within a person with honourable intent can be very difficult. Honour may dictate for example, that to lie is wrong, however what if the lie is selfless and preserves a life or a country from the plans of those with dishonourable intent. That's a straightforward example, life throws up infinitely more complex ones.

Also, in relation to Jeff's original point about keeping one's word, what if one's word given to a person dictates a course of action which would break the word given to another? For example, you promise to keep a secret, and promise another to obey them, and then that other demands this secret?
Alex
User ID: 9704903 		Jan 22nd 3:22 PM
It is all, of course, subjective, but I would disagee that "Clinging to principles...is the easy way..." If we adopt (which we, as Western men, did) the mode of changing our principles based on the fact that "...sutiations are different...People are different..." we would slide into opportunism. Where and how does one draw a line when adopting your principles and standards to circumstances? Principles are called so, because they are a set of semi-absolute (note the word "semi") standards that are not to be deviated from. Please, do not get me wrong, I would follow your mode anytime. But clinging to principles is not the easy way. Ned did, and look where it got him. And that, by the way, is how people with rigid sets of rules (honor) usually end up. Also, they hurt a good deal of other people, too. Ned probably had a very good idea, how dangerous the course he embarked upon was, but rather then question the validity of his action, whether is was really healthy or even nessesary to persue it, he went ahead. He also warned Cersei of his actions, which, being an utter stupidity even by Westeros political standards (left alone ours), still was a "honorable" thing to do. He was well aware that he was risking the well-being of his family (not just his own), but... he was a "honorable" man. Clinging to one's principles, IMO, requires much more courage and involves much more sacrifice (of course in extreme situation, in everyday life it is not that dangerous, or even obvious). Again, this is all very subjective, and brings up the eternal moral dillemma of teleological vs cosiquentual ethics, and absolute vs relative morality. Which has not been, nor will it ever be solved. Hence, all decisions will be made on a personal level, anyway.
Bill Hall
User ID: 8562343 		Jan 22nd 5:16 PM
We are each limited to our own understanding of the world and the people in it, but this does not mean that our decisions are restricted to a "personal" level (i.e., what's good for ME and mine, and devil take the hindmost).

Honor may mean many things, but its basic function in society is to enable effective cooperation. In some cases, this may entail honoring the spirit, rather than the letter, of a commitment. The spirit is often, "I will guard your interests as my own," which implies that the person must have a good model for the other's interests and intentions. Adherence to a strict code is a substitute based on some average model of the general good.

Ned did not have a good model for Cersei's intentions, or even Robert's. This kept him from adequately guarding the interests of his family or the kingdom, despite his having the clear will to do so. Thankfully, many honorable people are not so lacking in their ability to account properly for the darker forces in the personalities of those around them.

Holy wars and inquisitions draw their inspiration from moral "principles," although their prosecution owes more to the politics of hate. Today, we try for a morality that looks beyond the Tribe or the One True Faith, and maybe some of us succeed. I believe that reflects an improvement in our models, as well as a growing need to cooperate across geographic and ethnic boundaries - the social unit is now Humanity.

So to answer Jeff: One keeps one's word so that others are more likely to keep theirs. One strives to make it obvious that one's own own personal interests will not be placed ahead of the others' fundamental well-being. Recognizing the vulnerability this policy creates, one may persist (as Ned did) in hoping for reciprocity, but still plan for the full range of responses (as he did not). Acts falling within this idea of honorable behavior are not evil, even though the consequences of the act may be disastrous.
Min
User ID: 0074284 		Jan 23rd 7:25 AM
Alex, I think it depends the person. It never lead me to opportunism - or so I hope. I think I rethought my principles in situations where it would have been easier to hold on to them. And it did, inthese situations, not lead me to decisions that were easier for me. Or even better for me. They just were, in my opinion, more honorable.

Principles can be, as I said, dangerous. There are many examples.
Theft is wrong. Principle. What about someone who steals bread to survive?
Murder is wrong. Principle. If someone inflicted serious hurt, physical or psychological, to someone I dearly love, I would kill him, even if not in self-defense. And thus act against one of the most sacred principles: Murder is wrong. And yet, under certain circumstances, this could szill be honorable. In my opinion.

OK, let's take the books: Ned, sworn to his king, arose a rebellion against this very king. He violated his pledge. Violating a pledge is not honorable. Principle. But this king was mad - the principle had to be thought over. And Ned decided differently. He chose to go to war against his sworn li�ge. IMHO, that was an honorable act.

Same situation, another man: Jaime. Sworn to that same king, but as a Kingsguard, sworn with his blood to that King's life. And in the very throne room where he had taken his cloak and sworn his vows, he kills that king. For the same cause Ned followed. To dispose of him? To be on the winner's side? We do not know. Here, it becomes very difficult. Was his act honorable. The opinions on the board (this has been discussed over and over again already) differ widely. On the one hand, he did nothing else than Ned: Turning against a mad king he was sworn to before, breaking his vows for another decision. Honorable? My opinion is: We cannot know. We cannot know unless we do not know _what_ exactly drove Jaime to take this decision.

The path of honor is a very slippery one. That was what I wanted to express.

When I said thinking, I did not mean opportunism. Not in the least. Opportunism can just arise if you do not think clearly and honestly. But if you are honest with yourself, rethinking your principles will not lead to opportunism, but to a clearer, and possibly more honorable decision.
Min
User ID: 0074284 		Jan 23rd 7:27 AM
Oh, of course it depends the thinking. If you only think "which could serve me best here?", this will undoubtedly lead to opportunism. I rather thought of the "what would be the most honorable thing to do here" way of thinking. People clinging to principles sometimes tend not to think at all, but to just act according their principles. There's the mistakes, as they freeze in their own beliefs and not even realize it.
KAH
User ID: 0541004 		Jan 23rd 12:52 PM
I suppose a tentative definition of honor would be 'framework of social mores for a specified society' for pre-modern society, but growing more and more individual in definition in modern society.

I'm not sure if the Vikings had a very rigid honor framework, but they did have a name for what they saw as dishonorable - 'nidverk'.
The Viking society was rather martial. Right and wrong took the backseat for the more appreciated values of strength, sportsmanship, intelligence, bravery, steadfastness, and so on.

A 'niding' would usually be the opposite; weak, cowardly, wishy-washy, etc.

Killing women and children, for instance, would be seen as 'nidverk'; not because it is wrong in itself to kill, but because women and children were seen as weak and unable to defend themselves - it would be a craven thing to do.

Another example - let's say that a jarl joins the king in a war against rebels or whatever - the king is clearly within his rights in the matter (according to the law).
However, the jarl thinks he can get more privileges if he helps the other side win. He uses his intelligence and sweet tongue, and claims loyalty to the king (which of course is a bunch of lies).
However, during the battle, he changes sides, and slays the king in personal combat, effectively winning the battle for the rebels.

In contrast, consider a man who is generally friendly, and only wants to have peace with everyone. However, in the war between the king and the rebels, he is forced to take sides, and he is talked into joining the rebels, who are _not_ within their rights.
During the war, he is talked into joining the other 'good' side, or he fears for his life, because the rebels seem to losing.

Among these two men, I'd say the last one was much more likely to be contemptuously called a 'niding' by everyone, eventhough the first one would be the 'evil' one.
The former would of course be seen as an enemy and a traitor among the loyalists, but given that he has shown courage in battle, he is not likely to be dubbed 'niding'. Rather, it is the king that is all the more fool for trusting him. :o)

He has shown bravery and strength and intelligence, in contrast with the other, who showed little intelligence (people can talk him into anything), cowardice, and generally wishy-washyness.

Right and wrong, truth and lies, good and evil - it all existed in this society. They were just not all that important. :o)
And they didn't necessarily coincide with the subject of 'honor', as it were.


For my own part, keeping my word is proportionally more important for me, parallelled by the importance of my keeping my word.

I consider a promise given to others much more important than a promise given only to myself.
A New Years Promise given to myself to quit smoking would not smart much if I broke it, but had I given it to someone else - especially in a professional context - it would have been much more important to keep.

Moreover; how much that depends on my keeping my word, also necessarily effects my efforts. Also in a negative aspect - if people are likely to _suffer_ more than _benefit_ if I keep my word, I will probably not have much compunctions about breaking it - less than I would have for breaking a promise virtually not important at all.
Min
User ID: 0074284 		Jan 23rd 4:21 PM
Good analysis, as always. :-)

I have to add one thing, because of although I do not know if you intended the similarity: The example you spoke of, of the man taking his king's side to then slay him, sounded a lot like Jaime to me. Right?
KAH
User ID: 0541004 		Jan 24th 4:08 AM
I didn't really think of him, no. :o)

There are obvious similarities, of course.

I do not think, however, that Jaime intended Aerys' death when he was made Kingsguard.

I also question how brave it was to kill a king like Aerys - was he alone with Aerys when he killed him? Context seems to say so - we never see any other dead than Aerys. Either they were alone, or no one dared interfere.
Alex
User ID: 9892733 		Jan 24th 8:19 AM
To Min: the examples you give really don't look like re-evaluating the principles:
"Theft is wrong. Principle. What about someone who steals bread to survive?" - it is obvious that you (and any civilized modern person) consider that the value of human life superseeds the immorality of theft, and that is the your moral principle.
"Murder is wrong. Principle. If someone inflicted serious hurt, physical or psychological, to someone I dearly love, I would kill him, even if not in self-defense. And thus act against one of the most sacred principles: Murder is wrong. And yet, under certain circumstances, this could szill be honorable. In my opinion." - once again, you place the revenge and your personal feel of justice above the lawful society framework, and that is your principle.
So far, no reevaluation. The true test would come, if following the personal moral principle would result in a great deal of harm, but would not violate any other moral principles of the said person. To build upon your example, if you feel a burning need to revenge a gruesome wrong done for you or your loved ones, but the wrong doer was already apprehended by the society, and you feel that the punishment that awaits the culprit is not nearly enough. On the other hand, you taking justice in your own hands will almost certainly results in your death or, at least, incarseration, thus causing a great deal of grief and incovinience for your other loved ones (like your parents, etc.). This is where the danger of opportunism lies - will you follow, or would you hastily remember another (very valid) principle, that your first responsibility is to your remaining loved ones, and, hence, you must not put your life in danger? The problem with "re-evaluating" is that we can always (well, almost always)find another honorable reason not to put ourselves in harm's way, and sometimes even subconsciously convince ourselves that this is the right way - natural instinct of self-preservation at work.

When I said "you" in the above post, I did not mean you personnaly, of course, just a hypothetical person. And for all its worth, my moral system is much like yours, too.
Sphinx
User ID: 8882983 		Jan 24th 7:12 PM
Something that Kay got me thinking there is: how much is honour philanthropic? Do we do what is honourable in the interests of the greater good, or in the (perhaps unconscious) hopes of greater respect from others and/or reward? Of course, we'd all rather think the former, but...

For example, I often play a collectable card game called 'Jyhad'. In it, many deals are often made, often along the lines of 'if you attack player x (who is bugging me), thereby leaving yourself open to attack by me, I promise not to take advantage of it'. Evryone knows I always keep my word when I make these deals, because I always have, so they are more likely to go after pesky player x, which means that in the long run, I see a solid return on my honour. If, however, I knew for a fact that it was my last game of Jyhad, and if I backstabbed the guy, I'd win... well...

I know that's only a game, but I'm illustrating the principle, not because I necessarily believe it of all 'honourable' people, but certainly of some.
Jeff
User ID: 1536664 		Jan 25th 10:47 AM
Alex said something that, to me, its fairly close to what I would consider honor:

"honor is the ability to determine a set of moral and behavioral standards once and for all, which then must be followed to the letter, no matter what the cost."

I would modify that somewhat by saying that there also must be an acceptable morality behind the standards that are developed. Maybe not an ideal morality, but at least an acceptable one. Gregor may be consistent, but he's not honorable.

I would add that you have to apply your moral and behavioral standards to yourself as well as to others. It requires a certain degree of selflessness -- "would I treat this person the same if that were me or a loved one? The real test of an honorable man is when he follows his moral code even when it is against his subjective interests to do so.

I think Jaime got it all wrong. When he complained to Catelyn, he focused too much on various oaths that he gave and the conflicting obligations mandated by those oaths. He didn't focus on the underlying morality as much which is where I think he got into trouble.

Dunk's view I think was perhaps the best. He did not want to be bound by oaths to a lord that might come into conflict with his own moral views of what a knight should be. So, he remained a hedge knight and refused to take service with a lord.
Min
User ID: 0074284 		Jan 28th 8:32 AM
I think I have found out my problem in this.

My standards for honor appeal just for me. And what is right for me might be wrong for another. I swore not ever to break my word when I was around the age of seventeen. I held to it since then. But I cannot condemn someone who does. I never killed someone, but if someone else does, I would not condemn him before not _thinking_ about why he did it.

It comes back to our old discussion of redemption once more. My moral standards are certainly right, but they are right only for me. A different person may see things differently, and be as right - for himself - as I am. As honorable. This was what made us disagree, though I agreed with most points all of you made. I would not want to put my moral standards, my truths, on others. I would not measure them by what I think is right, for they are different.

Let's leave out law and order here, I know that there have to be rules and that those have to be followed. I just want to get this clear on a personal basis.
Jeff
User ID: 1536664 		Jan 28th 1:30 PM
I think you're right to leave law and order out of this. I do think that there's a bit of a problem in saying that others might see things differently and therefore should not be measured by what you think is right. I think we have to do that, but I think we've discussed this before so I won't belabor the point.

I will say that it is possible for a person with a slighly different persepective to be equally honorable. One example I can think of is Rommel during WWII. He was universally respected by his opponents for being a highly honorable man who treated others with dignity and respect. On the other hand, I think there comes a point where certain moral codes might be inherently inconsistent with being "honorable".

Next 20 Messages Newest Messages