DD79 – The Honor Code
There are some words that give us pause for thought, because their meanings turn out to be tricky, rather than straightforward. The Oxford English Dictionary makes this clear as it explores meanings of the word ‘honour’. To begin with it considers honour as opposed to disgrace: “Great respect, esteem, or reverence received, gained, or enjoyed by a person or thing; glory, renown, fame; reputation, good name.” To act with honour is to demonstrate “Great respect, esteem, or deferential admiration felt towards a person or thing”. Frequently, the dictionary advises us, this leads to being held in honour.
From this first definition, we find that honour is also used as describing a quality of character, one entitling a person to great respect; nobility of mind or spirit; honourableness, uprightness; a fine sense of, and strict adherence to, what is considered to be morally right or just. To continue, it is a short step to emphasise it is a code, a statement, often expressed as a promise made on one’s honour. If the usage is archaic, there is the sense that when a person gave his or her word, they gave it ‘on their honour”.
In many ways this takes us to the idea of ‘precepts, rules to follow’, and these have a long and complicated history. To cite one example there are The Ten Precepts of Taoism , to be found in the Dunhuang manuscripts, generally regarded as the classical rules of medieval Taoism. They are often as cited in two parts: one rule that is divided into Ten Precepts. That rule is ‘the way’ (Tao), and The Precepts are:
- Do not kill but always be mindful of the host of living beings.
- Do not be lascivious or think depraved thoughts.
- Do not steal or receive unrighteous wealth.
- Do not cheat or misrepresent good and evil.
- Do not get intoxicated but always think of pure conduct.
- I will maintain harmony with my ancestors and family and never disregard my kin.
- When I see someone do a good deed, I will support him with joy and delight.
- When I see someone unfortunate, I will support him with dignity to recover good fortune.
- When someone comes to do me harm, I will not harbor thoughts of revenge.
- As long as all beings have not attained the Dao, I will not expect to do so myself.
They can be compared the Seven Laws of Noah in Judaism, the set of universal moral rules given by God as a covenant with Noah, and, by extension, to all of humanity. Hence we have the Seven Laws of Noah :
- Not to worships idols
- Not to curse God
- Not to commit murder
- Not to commit adultery or sexual immorality
- Not to steal
- Not to eat flesh torn from a living animal
- To establish courts of justice
Are these similar to modern ethical codes, developed by organisation to assist members in understanding the difference between right and wrong? In modern usage a code of ethics will start by setting out the values that underpin the code and will describe an organization’s obligation to its stakeholders. The code is publicly available and addressed to anyone with an interest in that organization’s activities and the way it operates. It will include details of how the organization plans to implement its values and vision, as well as guidance to staff on ethical standards and how to achieve them. However, a code of conduct is generally addressed to and intended for the organization’s leaders and staff, although it may make some reference to customers. It usually sets out restrictions on behaviour, and it is often far more focused on compliance or rules than on values or principles.
Similarly, in some cases an ‘honour code’ might be a code of practice is adopted by a profession (or by a governmental or non-governmental organization), which will discuss difficult issues and difficult decisions that will often need to be made. Following this they will then provide a clear account of what behavior is considered ‘ethical’ or ‘correct’ or even ‘right’ in the circumstances. Ethical codes are often adopted by management and employers, not to promote a particular moral theory, but rather because they are seen as pragmatic necessities for running an organization in a complex society in which moral concepts play an important part. They are distinct from moral codes that that may apply to the overall culture of society, to education, and to a religion. Overall, a code of ethics can be seen as an attempt to codify “good and bad behavior”.
Within this thicket of ideas, a code of honor or honor code is often comprised as a set of rules or ideals or a mode or way of behaving regarding honour that is socially, institutionally, culturally, and/or individually or personally imposed, reinforced, followed, and/or respected by certain individuals and/or certain cultures or societies. Codes of honor frequently concern (often subjective) ethical or moral considerations or cultural or individual values commonly found in within the context of cultures, societies, or situations that place importance on honor. In case it isn’t clear, an honour code is a very variable aspect of current society.
It is into this complex arena that understanding change is especially important. How does moral progress happen? How are societies brought to repudiate immoral customs they have long accepted? In The Honor Code, Kwame Anthony Appiah explores a long-neglected aspect of reform. He suggests that moral revolutions happen because of many issues, but that there is one issue that is often overlooked. In particular, he argues that examining moral revolutions in the past — and campaigns against abhorrent practices today — shows that appeals to reason, morality, or religion aren’t enough to bring about reform. Practices may only be eradicated only when they come into conflict with honor.
It might well be the case that Kwame Akroma-Ampim Kusi Anthony Appiah is particularly well qualified to write on this topic: he is an English-American philosopher and writer who has written about political philosophy and ethics and the author of several books. He is Professor of Philosophy and Law at New York University and has been a ‘Silver Professor’ there since 2025. He was elected President of the American Academy of Arts and Letters January 2022. He brings to bear an academic and a cultural lens to make sense of the place of honour in the way moral revolutions happen.
The Honor Code begins with Appiah’s portrayal of the often-deadly world of aristocratic Britain, where for centuries gentlemen challenged each other to duels. Recounting one of the last significant duels in that world—between a British prime minister and an eccentric earl—Appiah shows a society at the precipice of abrupt change. Turning in the next chapter to the other side of the world, Appiah investigates the end of foot binding in China. The practice had flourished for a thousand years, despite imperial attempts at prohibition, yet was extinguished in a generation. Appiah turns his spotlight on this turbulent era and shows how change finally came not from imposing edicts from above, but from harnessing the ancient power of honor from within.
In even more intricate ways, in the next section Appiah demonstrates how ideas of honor helped drive one of history’s most significant moral revolutions—the fast-forming social consensus that led to the abolition of slavery throughout the British empire and recruited ordinary men and women to the cause. Yet his interest isn’t just historical. Appiah considers the horrifying persistence of ‘honor killing; in places like Pakistan, despite religious and moral condemnation, and the prospects for bringing it to an end by mobilizing a sense of collective honor—and of shame.
For an academic, he has something of a storyteller’s flair, combining this with philosophical rigour, and The Honor Code offers an accessible and rather different approach toward moral inquiry. Briefly ranging from a great mandarin’s abandonment of an ancient Chinese tradition to Frederick Douglass’s meetings with Abolitionist leaders in London, Appiah reveals some of the details as to how moral revolutions really succeed.
Honour or honor (in American English, which Appiah uses) is a quality of a person that is of both social and personal, relevance, often described as a code of conduct, an abstract concept entailing a perceived quality of worthiness and respectability that affects both outward considerations, especially social standing, yet with an internal, self-evaluation, aspect, whereby individuals (or institutions) are assigned worth and stature based on the harmony of their actions with a moral code of the society or those that characterise specific institutions within a society.
It also refers to integrity, and he repeats Samuel Johnson who, in his 1755 Dictionary of the English Language, defined honour in relationship to ‘reputation’ and ‘fame’; to ‘privileges of rank or birth’, and even towards ‘respect’ of the kind which “places an individual socially and determines his right to precedence”. He also makes clear that this sort of honour is often not so much a function of moral or ethical excellence, as it is a consequence of power. Finally, with respect to sexuality, honour has traditionally been associated with (or identical to) chastity or virginity, or in the case of married men and women, even linked to ‘fidelity’.
Honour as a code of behaviour defines the duties of an individual within a social group. Margaret Visser observes that in an honour-based society “a person is what he or she is in the eyes of other people”. A code of honour differs from a legal code, which is not only socially defined but is concerned with justice and not set out in explicit rules. Honour often remains somewhat opaque, implicit rather than explicit and objectified.
Various sociologists and anthropologists have contrasted cultures of honour with cultures of law. A culture of law has a body of laws which all members of society must obey, with punishments for transgressors. This requires a society with the structures required to enact and enforce laws. A culture of law requires members of society give up some aspects of their freedom to defend themselves and to retaliate for injuries, on the understanding that society will apprehend and punish transgressors.
However, in many societies an alternative to government enforcement of laws is community or individual enforcement of social norms.. One way that honour functions is through reputation, and an honourable reputation is a very valuable way to promote trust among partners to some kind of transaction. To dishonour an agreement could be economically ruinous, because future potential transaction partners might stop trusting the party not to lie, steal their money or goods, not repay debts, mistreat the children they marry off, have children with other people, abandon their children, or fail to provide aid when needed. A dishonourable person might be shunned by the community as a way to punish bad behaviour and create an incentive for others to maintain their honour.
In the end, I begin to feel Appiah has done what we often do, which is to take a term and ‘stretch’ its meaning. Honor has been a very slippery notion, its use allowing an individual to include or exclude another on the grounds very specific attributes; honourable people often ending up ‘just like me’, not because they meet some externally validated standards. He makes me remember the challenge of claiming to do good.
In a sense, his examples do this. As we reach the end of each of the sections, we have to face the complexity. To end foot binding was the result of many factors. To see an end to duels was not particularly the result of honour as it was about self-interest and personal satisfaction. To claim these as honourable actions is to ignore more pertinent issues: in relation to foot binding the dominating concern was about the fear of being seen as backward as much as any other; in relation to duelling, it was often seen as action motivated by pride and an unwillingness to confront the nature of disagreement and avoid discussion.
Honor, Appiah makes clear, is often a mask to hide racist and sexist values, and the underlying principles are more to do with exploitation and shame. Appiah is most interesting when he moves to draw conclusions. He wants honour to be about respect, but honour codes are often used to perpetuate traditional distinctions, increasingly out of touch with our attempts to develop universal standards of equity and equality. If an honourable person seeks respect, surely this is better addressed by seeking justice, an easier value to defend. Appiah sees honour related to esteem and ethical behaviour, but it is more like a worrying synonym, uncomfortably associated with men seeking to mark or kill an opponent.
Despite these quibbles, in the end I gained a great deal from his analysis, and The Honor Code made me think without feeling obliged to accept his underlying thesis. Isn’t that what we want from an important thinker, to be kept alert and critical? In doing that, he made me grateful and, I have to admit, left me with enough to think about that it’s a book I have returned to, and kept me asking is there more to a moral code than I have been able to understand?
I am clear that honour has played a role in the past, and perhaps still does today. However, I suspect honour is one of those funny ‘portmanteau’ words that contains several aspects within the word itself. As Appiah makes clear, it touches on ethics, morality, social differences, culture and convention. His case studies are masterly exercises in teasing out the various factors at stake, factors that are sometimes only loosely linked to honour, but consideration of which illustrate that any effective and helpful exploration of honour inevitably forces us to examine a wide range of issues.
