Houston Chronicle
The Death of Honor
David C. Stolinsky
Friday, Nov. 1, 2002
What is left when honor is lost? – Publius Syrus, 42 B.C.
Recently, bank robbers in Nebraska murdered five people in a horrible crime. One of the
murderers had been stopped for a traffic violation by a state trooper. The man was found to be
carrying a gun. The trooper entered the serial number of the gun incorrectly, so the computer did
not identify the gun as stolen. As a result, the suspect was released, though the gun was
confiscated.
Had be been in jail, his companions might have called off the robbery. Or they might have
robbed another bank with equally tragic results. Who can say? But the tragedy deepened when
the trooper, distraught over his error, shot himself. He left a wife and six children, aged 4 to 15.
We can sympathize with the trooper's feelings of guilt and worthlessness. Many of us have had
similar feelings. At the same time, we can criticize his suicide on religious grounds, and because
he abandoned a family dependent on him.
But beyond these factors, there is the question of honor. The trooper probably felt that he could
die with honor if he could no longer live with honor.
The concept of honor is no longer taught to young people. Indeed, the word is rarely used. The
only times I recall hearing it in years is in TV courtroom scenes, where the judge is addressed as
"Your Honor."
But is it good to live in a nation where honor is merely a title for judges?
Have we lost something important – something we had in former years, when kids were taught
not to commit dishonorable acts? Are we poorer because instead of thinking "Is this honorable?"
people now ask themselves, "Is this legal?" That is, we lowered the bar from what is right to
what is legal.
If we feel an act is dishonorable, we are reluctant to do it. True, we wouldn't want our friends to
find out. Still, honor is largely internal – we monitor ourselves. But if we feel an act is illegal, we
probably ask ourselves, "Will I get caught?"
Honor demands that we monitor ourselves; legality requires merely that we avoid detection.
That's a key difference. A society where citizens monitor themselves needs fewer laws and fewer
police than a society where citizens need others to monitor them.
But, you object, honor-based societies tend to be primitive and violent. In the Middle East and
elsewhere, the concept of honor has become twisted. Fathers and brothers believe that "family
honor" demands that they kill teenaged girls who have sex before marriage, or sometimes even if
they are seen in the company of the "wrong" boy.
And, of course, we have the gang "culture" in our own country. Gang members commit murder
because they feel "dissed." Clearly, murdering people whenever you feel disrespected is
destructive to civilization.
Nevertheless, if an excess of something is bad, this does not mean that its absence is good.
Overeating causes a variety of diseases. This does not prove that starvation is good for you. Too
little of something can be as harmful as too much.
An excess of honor, or at least what is called honor, can be dangerous. But what about too little
honor, or none at all? Can a civilization survive if its members, especially its men, have no
concept of honor?
Can we believe what people say, if they no longer use the expression "My word of honor"? Can
the family survive, if men no longer feel that honor requires them to stand by their wives and
support their children? Can the nation survive, if citizens no longer feel that honor demands that
they fight – and if need be die – to defend it?
Consider:
# In the disaster at Waco, 84 people, including 26 children, were gassed and burned to death.
Regardless of who was to blame, Attorney General Janet Reno was in charge. In testimony
before Congress, she "took responsibility." Honor would have required her to resign, to retire
from public life, and perhaps to devote herself to charity. "Taking responsibility" required her to
do precisely nothing. The contrast is stark. But the concept of honor escaped her.
# Over 3,000 innocent people were murdered by foreign terrorists on 9/11. As with Waco, one
can argue endlessly about details. But CIA Director George Tenet, a Clinton appointee, was in
charge of our intelligence-gathering apparatus. Tenet did not resign, nor was his resignation
demanded. The concept of honor never came up.
# Famous lawyers bamboozled the O.J. Simpson jurors by concocting far-fetched scenarios and
making a mountain of hair, fiber, shoe print, blood group and DNA evidence "disappear." The
jury packed its bags before deliberations began, and returned a not-guilty verdict in two hours.
The concept that "verdict" means "to speak truly" escaped them.
# President Bill Clinton lied under oath and disputed the meaning of "is" and "alone." But
supporters dismissed his lies as amusing foibles. The concept that an oath to God means
something escaped them.
# Presidential candidate Al Gore claimed he "took the initiative in creating the Internet," "found"
the Love Canal toxic site, and performed other fictitious exploits. But supporters dismissed his
lies as amusing foibles. The concept of honesty escaped them.
# Journalists depicted Gore as too smart for his own good, though he flunked out of divinity
school and dropped out of law school. Meanwhile, they depicted George W. Bush as a drooling
idiot. Many people remain unaware that he has an MBA from Harvard Business School. But
journalists saw nothing wrong with distorting the facts, if it would further their agenda. The
concept of truth escaped them.
# Corporate accountants and auditors turned liabilities into assets, and losses into profits. The
concept that signing one's name means something escaped them.
# Corporate executives exited in "golden parachutes" while employees were left unemployed and
shareholders were left holding worthless shares. The concept of responsibility escaped them.
# Some clergymen forgot that "pastor" means shepherd and acted more like wolves than like
sheep dogs. The concept of trust escaped them.
# A senatorial candidate was behind in the polls. He was replaced with another candidate after
the deadline had passed, but New Jersey Supreme Court justices saw nothing wrong with
changing the rules in the middle of the game. The concept of fairness escaped them. It may be
too late to send new ballots overseas, so military votes may not count. But the concept of
gratitude also escaped them.
# After enactment of harsh gun laws, homicide rates rose in Washington, D.C., and in Britain
and Australia. Law-abiding citizens were disarmed, but street criminals and the Beltway Sniper
were undeterred. Despite the evidence, liberals pressed for still more gun laws. Their political
agenda was more important to them than public safety. The concept of duty escaped them.
# Leftist teachers and self-anointed gurus taught some of our young people to hate America and
admire anti-American tyrants and anti-democratic ideologies. But they felt no guilt when John
Walker Lindh joined the Taliban, or when John Allen Muhammad reportedly approved of 9/11
and became the Beltway Sniper. The concept that words have consequences escaped them. The
concept that they were incredibly lucky to live in a free country never occurred to them.
# Three Democratic congressmen went to Iraq – a hostile country – and proclaimed that they
trust Saddam Hussein – a homicidal dictator – more than they trust their own president. The
concept of loyalty escaped them. The concept of honor was totally beyond them.
But here's what's really irritating. All these people who do not understand honor can live their
selfish lives in safety, because they are protected by soldiers, sailors, Marines, airmen, police and
firefighters – who understand honor quite well.
Yes, an excess of honor can be dangerous. But what will result if our enemies believe that honor
requires them to fight to the death to destroy our civilization, eradicate our religion, cripple our
nation, and murder our people – while we busy ourselves with making money and having fun?
One need not be a prophet to foresee what will happen if the other side has an excess of honor,
while we have a deficiency, or none at all.
We can criticize the trooper who shot himself. But we also can sympathize with him. And we
can use this tragedy to ponder the question of just how much honor is enough. Too much is
dangerous, but so is too little.
For the sake of freedom, the signers of the Declaration of Independence pledged "our lives, our
fortunes, and our sacred honor." If we aren't careful, we will raise a generation of citizens who
care so little about freedom that they won't risk the first two, and don't know the meaning of the
third.
Dr. Stolinsky is retired after 25 years of teaching in medical school .He writes on political and
social issues. He may be contacted at dcstolinsky@prodigy.net.
I sent the email below to the author of the article.
+++++++++++++++++++++
David:
I enjoyed most of your piece on honor. In fact, tonight's class will
open
with my posing Publius' question.
To my eye, neither bias nor factual inaccuracy steal honor from a man
until
the man is aware of those and still clings to them. I write because I
doubt you would still so cling.
On the bias side, I found it odd that your examples of those who lost
their
way were drawn so consistently from the Democratic Party. That such
Republican luminaries as Nixon and Ole North did not make you list, to
my
eyes, is reflective of a selection bias.
On the factual inaccuracy side, I will note but two, the Internet and
the
definition of "is". If you go to Gore's actual statement, rather than
the
spin doctors' characterization of Gore's actual statement, then you will
find that Gore was fully truthful. As a member of the House committee
with
oversight of DARPA, Gore championed the budgeting for the project that
evolved into the Internet of today. His comment when to technological
foresight, not to his prowess as a technician. I rank this distortion
of
truth as one of the "best" of the Stalinesque Big Lies told in America.
As
for "is", Clinton was asked to answer if an quote was true. The quote
was
from years before. The quote went to state of mind, that is, to what is
known by the speaker of the quote. What -was- known need not be the
same
as what -is- known. In this instance, all in the room knew more at the
time of the question than at the time of the quote. Clinton was asked
"is"
the quote true, hence, Clinton's most famous quote: "It depends on what
the meaning of 'is' is." The answer is "yes" if the meaning of "is" is
at
the time of the quote, and the answer is "no" if the meaning of "is" is
at
the time of the question. One detriment of being known as Slick Willie
is
that when the truth is spoken it is heard as lies.
To see how popular perception sees a white van when it is a blue four
door,
especially with the aid of spin doctors, I suggest you check your memory
of
another famous Clinton quote. Write down what you believe Clinton said
when Clinton looked you in the eye, wagged his finger, and told you the
truth about Monica. Then, only after you have written it down, get a
video
of what he said. Based on my count to date in academic papers with
footnotes, the odds are 17 wrong versions and 1 correct version. Each
of
the 17 wrong versions were identical. When I deliberately have done the
wrong version in class, never has a student looked the least bit
confused
and all professed that it was an accurate rendition; yet, upon
correction,
all profess the difference is material.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Michael
Professor Michael J. O'Hara, J.D., Ph.D.
Finance, Banking, & Law Department
College of Business Administration
Roskens Hall 502
University of Nebraska at Omaha
Omaha NE 68182
mohara@mail.unomaha.edu
(402) 554 - 2823 voice fax (402) 554 - 2680