The definition of Imperial Honor

[Monk]

Not sure...Culture of Honor in a historic sense is basically a concept for the lack of culture of law. With no legal punishment or recompense for criminal activity a culture of honor suggests the wronged or the family of the wronged may exact justice as they deem necessary. Typically a culture of honor is a violent one as the response to criminals is about corporeal punishment rather than rehabilitation.

 

[Banana's_Are_Good_For_You]

Not sure they have any, especially when they enslave their own people.
So, maybe their honour only lies in their slave folk who at least try and work their way out of their problems.
Dunno about the rest but I guess charitable actions are far beyond their comprehension.
Banana considers them Human Low Bobs.

 

[Backelaer]

A very well written explanation.
Let me add that this is theory however,
in practical environments honor is a shifting
idea of humans.

To me honor is an idea that is interesting,
but like honesty, rather limiting your ability
to decide for something else.

Ha! I like that one. That's a rather nice ehm... practical definition.
Have some rep.

 

[Vasious]

It seems to me, from reading the various documents on the political and cultural structure of the Empire, that "honour" has a lot to do with living up to public expectations, and fulfilling your promises. If you, as an Imperial citizen, promise to do something and find yourself unable to do it, you have lost honour - you've let down your family, your patron, your clients (if you have any), the Empire as a whole. Incurring a debt you fail to pay off is just one way of losing honour, though it is the main course of dishonour for which Imperial Slavery is the expected recourse.

I would imagine, for instance, that divorce is dishonourable in the Empire - you've promised to marry and stay married to someone, and you find you have to break that promise. Yet an Imperial divorcee would not feel obliged to sell themselves into slavery - they'd merely have to stay single for the rest of their lives, since no honourable person would willingly choose to marry someone who had already proved themselves dishonourable in marriage.

This whole concept of honour is entirely self-imposed, from the point of view of the citizen declaring themselves dishonourable, rather than a top-down judgement of dishonour from your superiors. But I would imagine that the concept is thoroughly integrated into Imperial cultural propaganda, entertainment and education, so one can debate exactly how "voluntary" the acts taken to alleviate dishonour are, when the citizenry has been bombarded with these concepts of honour from birth.

Honour cannot be self imposed, then it becomes personal morals.
Honour relies on shaming from the community as a whole., when you are not living up to their standard.

If you are conforming to personal morals, an internalised code, then attempts to shame should have no effect on your decisions as you are secure you are making the right choice by your won moral code and not dependent on the approval others for your choice of actions.

Like the difference between shame and guilt.
Guilt is when you feel bad internally for you actions as they don't live up to your moral code
Shame is when you are shunned by your peers for not living up to their consensus of Ethics in place.

Honour relies on shame not guilt, honour is external only.
You cannot say you have honour merely because you follow your own moral code, if that code goes against the social expectations and mores, as you will be shunned and they will try to shame you.

Interestingly we can see two examples of this in RP on the forums.

Federal Players try to shame imperial players for condoning Imperial Slavery.
An example of one group trying to impose its ethical code upon another by shaming them, thus appealing to a sense of honour or lack there of.
But since the Empire and the Federation are rivals and not peer groups then the attempt to cause loss of face is lessened as the shaming is from the Federation ethics applied to Imperial citizens, so there is no loss of honour in not conforming to a foreign ethical code.

The appeal should be not shame but to the individuals own moral code, to make them feel guilty rather than ashamed.

Another example is the Children of Liberty, in the Alliance who try to shame the Alliance for allowing non Democracies in its ranks.
https://community.elitedangerous.com/galnet/uid/55c1d2b89657ba00210d630d

So they are trying to Shame the alliance and cause it dishonour as the Alliance does not conform to the Ethics of the Children of Liberty.
Again this fails as the Alliance has its own Ethical code, so be they are not the same, there is no dishonour in not conceding the Children of Liberty's demands.

In fact the Children of Liberty are directly opposed to the ideals of the Alliance, as the Alliance of Independent System as set up to oppose external powers imposing their ideologies on Alliance members, and as per the Frontier First Encounters Manual, any Member of the Alliance must be a signatory on matters of basic Human rights and all citizens of any Alliance Member has the same rights anywhere in the alliance, so those who are in non-democracies do so out of free association. The Children of Liberty demanding all Alliance states be Democracies or be expelled, is in direct opposition to the founding principals of the Alliance

So again we see an attempt to Shame and cause a loss of Honour, by one group attempting to impose its ethical code on another, and hence the attempt at shaming fails, and just as the Children of Liberty doesn't recognise the Alliance Ethics and founding principals, then it they will not be shamed in to accepting them either.

Honour must only be external, not internal, also but only from ones own peer group.

So the concept of honour is alive and well, where ever there are attempts to get people to conform to group ethical code (group ethical is really a redundancy as Ethics is from Ethnos or tribe, it is the rules of living in the tribe so to speak) by shaming tactics.


I disagree Monk that a culture is honour is a culture without laws, as there were plenty of honour cultures with also codified laws.
Rehabilitation is only a recent concepts and unconnected with honour and law but the move away from laesa maiestas and the rise of humanism

 

[Sentenza]

I disagree Monk that a culture is honour is a culture without laws, as there were plenty of honour cultures with also codified laws.
Rehabilitation is only a recent concepts and unconnected with honour and law but the move away from laesa maiestas and the rise of humanism

I have to say, Monk is right. Looking at human history, honour systems first develop in absence of laws and strong societal organization, then as civil society become more organized and able to enforce codified laws, honour progressively lose its importance.

 

[Vasious]

I have to say, Monk is right. Looking at human history, honour systems first develop in absence of laws and strong societal organization, then as civil society become more organized and able to enforce codified laws, honour progressively lose its importance.

But not in a mutually exclusive manner which he seemed to imply

 

[the100thmonkey]

Nice write-up on the Alliance, the most tolerable of the superpowers.

One point though - how do the articles of the Alliance deal with Alliance-aligned anarchies? There are plenty of them.

With regard to an "honour" culture, I'd start with the concept of "face." "Honour" just doesn't quite capture the extent of the term.

 

[Vasious]

Nice write-up on the Alliance, the most tolerable of the superpowers.

One point though - how do the articles of the Alliance deal with Alliance-aligned anarchies? There are plenty of them.

From the Faction descriptions

They are
"A Group that refuses to recognize the legal construct as defined by the Alliance of Independent systems.
Often, but not always, these groups act as a front for some organised criminal syndicate"

The Same Way the Emperor's Dawn was
"An organisation that is actively engaged in activity that goes against the Imperial status quo. Members openly defy Imperial law, although not all known associates are involved in criminal activity"

And in the Federation
"A Faction that engages in activity that quite often places them at odds with members of the Federation Law Enforcement agencies"

I would say Anarchies that are align to Super Power represent the "Official Watch list" Criminal organisations of that Super Power, where as Independent anarchies are just described as "This Group is known to have a distain for any laws outside its own attempts to govern its members behaviour".

So An Independent anarchy might be a criminal gang or a frontier society with its own customs
Where as the Anarchies aligned with Alliance or Empire or Federation are ones under active investigation, ala "Organised Crime" or RICO, that kind of thing.

I don't take it as an Anarchy that is recognised as an Alliance member state, but a Major Criminal Organisation within the Alliance, just as the Emperors' Dawn wasn't an Imperial Sanctioned/Recognised Anarchy, but a Terrorist organisation within the Empire

 

[Sentenza]

But not in a mutually exclusive manner which he seemed to imply

Well, they are exclusive in the sense that one will eventually replace the other.

 

[Iskariot]

If Imperial Honour is anything derived from the Roman concept.

Honour is the flipside of shame

Honour is how other perceive you in meeting your obligations to society, vs being Shamed when you fail to live up to societies expectations.

It can be lost though shameful actions, but it can also be regained though action as well.

Those without honour are thus shunned, lose their connections and favour with their Patrons, and see their clients abandon them for another, hence the propensity to take drastic action to regain ones honour.

Being in charge of ones own fate, being the active agent, rather than the passive object, was a key part of Roman honour

As seen in the Patronage system, a client only stay with their patron as it was mutually beneficial, if it was not the relationship would break down, as they were both expected to be free and active agents, just co-aligned in their objectives.
A client too submissive would be considered shameful, just as a too domineering patron would lose face if their clients deserted them for a better option.


To the Key point of all discussions of Imperial honour in ED

Debt is a loss of the ability to be in control of owns onw destiny, to be less of a person, and thus to have lost honour as it is shameful to be at the whim of others.

Selling ones self into slavery to regain ones honour, does so, as you are taking control of your own destiny, by becoming a salve.
That may sound like a contradiction, but it is about being the one who makes the choice, and accepting the consequence, rather than being the [passive agent acted up.

A Modern example might be the common saying "You cannot fire me, I quit"

Both leave you without a job, but rather than being fired by someone else, the passive object, You quit, you are the active agent.

The other option to preserve one's honours and show they until the end you are in charge of your own fate, is not suitable for age rating o this forum, but I am sure it can be inferred by until the very end.

Great explanation.
have some honor, I mean... rep.