Let us start with the gist of an old story ¹. The Roman Empire has fallen. Its provinces, to varying degrees, have been subjected to centuries of unending war. At this point, the previously fortunate (but very small) Kingdom of the Burgundians (nee Alesia) finds itself facing invasion by not one, but two barbarian armies, that of the Hungarians and that of the Saracens. Each is a major power and neither is noted for its mercy toward the conquered. The King must now decide who to surrender to.

He surrenders to neither, but allies himself to both, pledging eternal loyalty and urging each of his allies to make war against the other, who poses a threat to his empire (of course). When the day of battle comes, and the Hungarian and Saracen forces meet, the Burgundians are nowhere to be seen - until the two armies have almost bled each other dry, and the Burgundians come down to wipe out the survivors among the armies of their newfound "allies". The key to winning the battle was knowing not to fight it at all.

"Ah", some will say, "so the Burgundian king provided an excellent example of how dishonorable behavior can be rewarded, by engaging in such a successful act of treachery". Wrong. His actions were, under our terms, perfectly honorable, or at least as honorable as military actions can be. The very concept of Honor is rooted in the effort to maintain the social order maintained by what we might now call, the social contract. The two barbarian forces he faced, in acting to destroy the entire fabric of society (and thus the very context in which such an order is defined), put themselves outside of that order, and thus, could no longer rightly expect to enjoy its protection.

So, when we speak of honor, here, we do not speak of the rigid keeping of one's word of the Norse warrior, or the consuming sense of duty and shattering sense of shame in the face of failure that is the way of the samurai. Rather, we speak of the conscientious effort to see to it that one's actions preserve the social expectations that make it possible, and prudent, for us to depend on each other, and thus be able to cooperate with each other in a relatively efficient fashion. This network of social expectations and mutual understandings, the respecting of which becomes habitual, constitutes the social contract. This is a contract, in the sense that it involves the willingness of each of us to abide by the rules, so as to contribute to the expectation that collectively, we, as a social assemblage, will uphold the rules.

Here is the first of our values that, even given the quirks of our species, is not equivalent to the others. Or, at least its long term equivlance will not make itelf quickly felt. One can be scrupulously honest and still be cruel. The social order one may seek to uphold may be a Nietzschean one that calls for the oppression of the weak and the "minding of one's place", and such a society may remain stable for centuries. But the anger they generate does not go away, merely by benefit of its expression being suppressed. Those cultures that fail to understand this, in the end, become object lessons and the subject of proverbs, as their outraged victims ban together with thoughts of genocide. I trust the reader has heard of Assyria?

What goes around, comes around, eventually. So, if we are to see honor, not just as an upholding of the understandings we need to keep functioning in the short term, but extend the concept to make it an upholding of those understanding needed to create a sustainable society, then this second concept, this higher honor, will require us to uphold the previous four.

To go the other way, consider, in the course of a day, how many times one will have to take another at his word in order to get anything done at all. Could be maintain any sort of trade, or economy, if we expected those we entrusted the shipping of an item to, to steal or discard it? Can we learn anything if those whose books we read, feel no hesistation to lie? Practically every action that takes place during a day involves one's dependence of another, and so there can be no meaningful freedom, if we can not trust each other to make a strong effort to keep our word and to uphold our obligations.

Anger, or anguish, in response to betrayal is an emotion that has been seen in every culture we've ever heard of, and the downfall of a culture certainly brings great suffering, so our value of enlightened benevolence can not be upheld in the absence of honor, no matter how "well intentioned" those who breach it may have fooled themselves into thinking that their actions are.

Thus, once again, an equivalence of values is seen.

As a closing note, before we set work on this site aside for the duration, let us tentatively consider the next two values. Seeing that honor implies loyalty is simply a matter of observing what it is that humans instinctively expect of each other, and how little they can achive in the way of working together, when this particular expectation is left unmet. People who want to do violence to each other aren't going to work together very well, or be able to build a society that anyone will find any great joy in belonging to.

But what of respect for tradition? All six of the preceding values are contained by it, if we are speaking of our own tradition. But as for benevolence, our first value, we have already seen that it is impossible to ever construct an all encompassing set of rules that will uphold it in an optimal fashion, on all occasions. At best, we can construct incomplete codes, in an effort to approximate the unfindable ideal code. But those approximations must always be subjected to an evaluation that can only come from a balancing of the various conflicting goods, that the code seeks to address. The only way to do so, is to see natural human behavior, and to gain the perspective found by becoming part of a cohesive society. One can only know what good is, and why it matters, by fully experiencing it. To destroy the traditions that hold a society together is to destroy the society, and to leave its people floundering, unable to seperate the good from the bad, and ultimately, to even understand that there is a real difference between the two.

If there is a epitaph to be offered for the 20th century, that's probably it. It is on this note, that we will close out our discussion of the code, until we resume, in 2002². But, let us come to one understanding. Some will say, "well, couldn't we reject some of these values, and seek common ground in the values we do share?". In saying "could" instead of "may", they stumble onto exactly the right question. The answer is no. To reject even one of these values is to reduce the others to empty posturing. This is an all or nothing deal. But if this is viewed as being too narrow a set of moral assumptions to begin a group under, what a sad comment on our society, and what a blessed relief our failure would be for us, because, as we have noted, every single one of these moral demands, is a long respected part of what has traditionally been viewed as "common decency". Lose that, and what is the point of religion?

Here's a good exercise, though, for the next two years. Get some real perspective. History did not begin during the 1960s. Find some people old enough to remember life, long before the "do your own thing" crowd started defining fashion, and rewriting history to its own liking. Ask them to tell you about what life, and the world, used to be like, and how people used to behave. You might find it enlightening.

See you later.

(1) I can't vouch for the historical accuracy of this story, having only encountered it as folklore, but it serves as a good illustration.

(2) 2002 has come and gone. I never did resume work on this page for reasons given elsewhere on this site.