What does this say?

Question

"The diference between a moral man and an honourable man is that the honourable man will feel guilty about a dishonourable act even though it has worked in his favour and he has not been caught."

What do you think is the message in this phrase and what does it mean for those who hold morals or honour scared? (Also if you know who said it first that would be greatly appreciated.)

Which is better to have morals or a code of honour?

Please explain your answers.

I Thank You in advance for your insight.

Answer 1

The difference between honor and morals is that morality is based on community standards. Honor is something you define for yourself about yourself. Hence, the honorable man is more likely to follow his code of behavior than a moral person.

An honorable man follows his own code of behavior. His own honor is at stake rather than the community's ethical stance. He knows that if he commits a dishonorable act he has slighted himself. While the rest of the community might not know what he did, he knows.

Of course honor and morality overlap which seems to confuse the issue. Moralists may claim that they are more likely to do the right thing because they know, for instance, that God or Jesus is watching; or argue that God has stated what is moral so its an absolute rather than community defined. But the point is that morals are generally acquired from external sources. If that external source is unaware of an immoral transgression, and it benefited him he is more likely to do it again than a person of honor.

On the flip-side, knights acquired their Code of Honor from their training; but a Code of Honor is really a moral stance because it is determined by and acquired from an external source (such as the military) rather than a self defined sense of self. .

I can't answer which is better, depends probably on your beliefs about the two. But, in all honesty, I am more likely to lend money to the honorable man than the moral one.

Answer 2

"Though an honourable man will feel guilty about a dishonourable act even though it has worked in his favour and he has not been caught", the moral man wouldn't do it in the first place. I would think that having morals would be better than having honour, since to do the act still leaves traces in the world and is therefor not right. When you have morals, then in living up to them, you don't commit the act to begin with. In that respect you leave no trace of discord on the earth or in the minds of men. So, I would say that having morals would be better than having honour.

Answer 3

A moral man is always going to do what is right no matter the outcome. An honourable man will do what is in his best interest to keep the horourable part of his demeanor. So if it is a dishourable act but in the end helps the man he will feel a small amount of guilt but will never tell what he has done.

I think it is best to be a good person. A good person trumps a stereotype anyday. A good person will do what is right and moral as well as honourable. A good person lives knowing that a bad decision will have a bad outcome sooner or later. Hope that makes sense to ya...sounds good to me!

Answer 4

I think that the statement itself is wrong... thats why because people do a lot of immoral things just to save honour..

For example, what about a soldier? he kills for his country.. is it honourable? YES..!! is it moral?? NO.. you can find innumerable examples like this..
This proves that the statement is wrong..

In my opinion, I would say that in our times, it is better to have a right balance of Morals and Honour, with Honour taking the larger part of the balance.. because, the line which differentiates between honour and morals is fast fading and everything is being open to questions in the right scenario... thus, it is advisable to follow the path which suits you best and man being the social animal, Honour is a better option than to choose Morals. come to think of it, Being honourable is also a moral thing to do...

"Conscience doesn't prevent you from doing sins, it only prevents you from enjoying it.."

Answer 5

Hi Arthur!!!

All of us at one point or another have being both!!! You see???? Morality, is relative to the place one live in. And being honorable too!!!

So in our society and with all the preassure given, at some point in our lifes we use both as a mechanism of own defense.

I believe that being a moral person, guilt will NOT be present in the actions. Because, the MORAL of a person is set-up by the persons own standars. Their own believes.

If the person has high standards, society will accept him/her better. But if the person has low standars, society will reject him/her, faster. Accordingly with the standars of that society.

No guilt is associated with moral actions!!!

In the other hand, an honourable person, will experience guilt, when his/her actions are out of his/her convictions.
This type of person will try to the best of his/her ability to act accordingly, NOT only to his own standars but also to the standars already set by society.

For this reason if the honourable person acts at one point dishounorable, he/her WILL feel guilty.

I believe one needs to know the whole motive for this sentece to be said in the first place, what was it triggered by, before making jugedment.

I think that both, morals and having a code of honor, are essencials characteristics, to live in today's society.

GOD BLESS YOU & HAPPY LIFE
A.Z.

Answer 6

Honour is a moral value already.
A man having good moral values would not iget close to a dishonorable act.

Answer 7

Henry Mencken is credited with the quote on quotedb.com

Answer 8

to hold honour and to be humble

Answer 9

tis always good to be moral, nature rewards

Answer 10

I'm confused.