Yes, Lily, in English, it’s spelled with a “u” as is, for instance, colour. In American, it’s not. More importantly, it’s an important subject that is much ignored or treated with distain in the world many of us live in today. As evidence, I cite your very true statement, “I think this is a word we toss around an awful lot, to the point that the meaning behind it is vague at best.” This should not be true, Lily, but it is. The meaning behind it should not be vague, it should be crystal clear to each of us, even though the details of how each of us applies it would be different with each of us.

Tojo, I think you hit the principle of it on the head, when you said, “…to me it means treating others with respect at all times- even when it's hard. It's sticking by a friend or partner, trying not to hurt others with words or deeds. Standing up for what you believe in, & most of all not 'going along with the crowd' when they put down others or talk crap- even if it means you're not popular...” I think that is summarized by saying that honor (I’m American, Lily) does not seek the crowd’s approval, it seeks the peace of the man in the mirror and his conscience. THAT, of course, assumes that the man in the mirror (or the woman, in the case of the ladies) has a conscience. I contend that honor and a conscience go hand in hand. The loss of one portends the loss of the other.

Striped angel, outstanding example. Thank you for it. What struck me most was this. “...but he never called himself honourable. It was all about simply doing the right thing.” “Simply doing the right thing.” I think I can correctly extend that to include “even if it wasn’t popular, or easy, or pleasant, or any other similar thing.” Dovetails perfectly with the principle Tojo propounded, but that should be no surprise.

Sidhewolf gives us more meat to the subject with her “thoughts, experience, and perception.” She cites “Respect from inside a Person” and she correctly notes it starts with self respect. She lists these characteristics, “Responsible, Accountable, Honest, Reasonable, Trustworthy, and Balanced.” I’d like to think I could generate as concise a list. Then she dovetails with the above principle with “Someone who can see the bigger picture, and beyond what They may may want on a whim. They consider the consequences to Themselves and Other's, of what They may wish to do. And They Balance all things with a scale of right and wrong. One who has Honour never does wrong Knowingly. If They do wrong They try to correct that wrong.” However, she seems to go against the flow when she says “I don't think Anyone gives it to a Person, or can take it away.” I think she’s right, by the way, but I don’t think that statement is all of the story.

I mean no offense to subservient when I do not quote her, but her post is succinct, and in complete support of the notions above.

I have quoted and remarked on all of the above because the continuity of thought struck me here. If indeed “this is a word we toss around an awful lot, to the point that the meaning behind it is vague at best” (and I think that’s true of the vast majority of people I deal with every day) then this continuity of thought is heartening and I’m glad to see it.

I will add only this. It has been said here both that honor is not something one can declare for themselves, and that it is something that is not given to a person nor taken away from them. Actually, I believe both are true.

Honor comes from within a person. It is a commitment to do right, even when it’s difficult or unpleasant. While what’s “right” might vary from honorable person to honorable person, the commitment to it will not vary, if they are honorable indeed. A commitment is a declaration by oneself to oneself that one WILL adhere to something.

Hence, it MUST be true that one can declare himself (or herself) honorable. That is NOT the same thing as someone blowing his own horn and BRAGGING of his honor. A quiet, personal declaration is something quite different from “having to tell” everyone that honor is there.

I think that the “giving honor” that is being mentioned in this thread is actually “recognizing honor” where it is already present. That recognition itself is an honorable act, and therefore feels like it is being given, but it is merely seeing the symptom, not installing the root cause.

Hoping I haven’t bored everyone to death with this tome, and best regards,

Gear.