Тег: Honor

Dignity for the herd, honor for personalities

Bitarch and the Voluntarist claim that of the two cultural models of behavior—honor and dignity—the second is more attractive to libertarians, as the first is collectivist and the second is individualistic.

Let us use the same definitions. In a culture of honor, a person’s standing is determined by how much their behavior conforms to certain high standards. In a culture of dignity, a person is valuable by the mere fact of belonging to humanity.

From this, it is easy to draw both the conclusions of the article and the exact opposite: honor is about individualism, since a person defends their own honor or chooses dishonor; dignity, however, is a collectivist thing, since only collective trends will determine what offends human dignity and what does not. Other people within a “culture of dignity” may turn out to be so valuable that any sidelong glance would humiliate their dignity, and the law would punish this, for example, with imprisonment for “inciting hatred.”

If today a person chooses to rely on the protection of an impersonal law instead of individual action, then tomorrow that same law will strip them of their dignity, and the person will have already lost the capacity for individual action in the previous step.

What is the culture of honor based on? On the fact that a person is always ready to demonstrate their willingness to defend themselves against the encroachments of others, and thereby avoids the need to repeat this again and again. Others see the readiness to repel and are wary of infringing upon another’s honor. Of course, the concept of honor is broader than the readiness for violence, but in the article under discussion, it is reduced only to this, so we will not expand the topic unnecessarily.

And what is a culture of dignity, if described in the language of a culture of honor? It is the presumption that everyone can defend their honor. I do not know if every person I meet is truly a person of honor. But I will assume this and base my behavior on it. Therefore, I will not encroach upon what is dear to them, knowing that their honor commands them to defend it. They are worthy of this. In other words, dignity grows out of honor. It limits honor, but does not deny it.

Bitarch and the Voluntarist propose to cast aside honor in favor of dignity. They want to deprive a person of the right to forcefully defend what is dear to them, while hoping that the law will be observed in a culture of dignity. But they forget to remind us that the law can become anything. A society with dignified laws (referring not to written norms, but to the actual practice of their application) will preserve a culture of dignity. A society with undignified laws will lose it. But what will compel people to fight for dignified laws and against undignified ones? Honor, of course!

To summarize. In reality, we are talking about the same thing. Respect for the values of the individual is important for building a prosperous society. But we do not agree on the means. If the NAP is reduced only to the refusal to initiate direct violence, then an encroachment on another’s freedom can bypass the NAP through indirect methods. This is exactly why the capacity for proactive violence cannot be taken away from a person. Without this capacity, a person will be unable to resist their own enslavement. Bitarch and the Voluntarist are developing mechanisms to strengthen the inhibitor of violence. If their means worked, it would make me their enemy. Fortunately, they work only on paper.

Honor is for the herd, dignity is for individuals.

Many people like movies about cool guys who “take charge,” protect family honor, and stage impressive duels at dawn. But let’s sort things out: real life isn’t a Clint Eastwood movie. And “the culture of honor,” which seems romantic at first glance, is actually not a cool tradition, but an ancient relic that still messes with our lives.

You might ask: what are we even talking about? Let’s consider two cultural models of behavior that shape society. The culture of honor – this is when your reputation in the eyes of others is the most important thing. Someone insults you? You must immediately “respond,” otherwise you’ll lose respect. Your honor is the honor of your family, clan, nation. If you don’t defend it—you are a coward. In turn, the culture of dignity is a completely different story. Here, your dignity is internal and doesn’t depend on what others think. If someone tries to insult you, you don’t rush into a brawl, but either calmly ignore the provocateur or handle the situation civilly through the courts.

Basically, the culture of honor is an ancient thing. Remember Homer and his epic “Iliad.” Those guys fought for honor like crazy. Then there were knightly duels in the Middle Ages, Italian vendettas, blood feuds on the Caucasus. And it seems like this is already in the past. But no! Even now, the state actively plays on the concepts of “honor” and “national dignity” to silence anyone who dares criticize management. What’s that if not medieval logic? And in private life, we’ve probably all heard phrases like “Do you respect me?” from various types of thugs.

What’s wrong with the culture of honor? Well, everything is wrong! It’s based on the fact that your value is determined by someone else, not by yourself. You as a person don’t matter; what matters is your “reputation.” You have to constantly prove your right to respect because someone suddenly decided to offend you. This is a culture in which the individual is always subordinate to the group. “Are you against our clan? Then you are an enemy.” People can be manipulated into fighting each other by saying that their honor has been “offended.” The authorities use this perfectly. Besides, it’s one of the factors stimulating violence.

The alternative is the culture of dignity. This is when society recognizes that every person is valuable in themselves simply because they are a human being. It doesn’t matter who you are or where you come from – your rights are protected by law, not a fist. You don’t have to beat up the first person who offends you to prove that you are worth something. In a society of dignity, reputation is trust earned through deeds, not fear of revenge.

Why do we so dislike “honor”? Because libertarianism is about personal freedom and respect for individual rights. And the culture of honor is about anything but this. Honor is always about the collective. You have to obey the interests of the family, nation, leader – that is, other people. Your personal freedom doesn’t matter if it’s at stake for a certain “correctness” and “reputation.” And we as libertarians say: no, that won’t do, because you can’t break a person just for their compliance with these “honor” and “reputation.”

By the way, an interesting fact: many developed and successful countries (such as Scandinavia, Canada, developed American states like California and New York) have long been living according to a culture of dignity. But countries stuck in a culture of honor (Russia and other Eastern European and Middle Eastern countries) are somehow constantly suffering from authoritarianism and corruption. Coincidence? I don’t think so.

And is it possible to get rid of a culture of honor? Of course, it’s possible. Besides the traditional approach in the form of changing the prevailing mentality in society, broad therapeutic practice will give a big immediate effect – strengthening the mechanism of inhibiting violence in individuals with its deficit. After all, only mentally ill psychopaths can support all this toxic culture in reality, while most normal people with a strong inhibitor will not even want to “defend their honor” using violence!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

What is an acceptable reaction to a verbal insult for a libertarian (given that it is committed without the use of physical violence)? How can one influence the insulter so that they lose the desire to do so again?

Bitarch (question paid in the amount of 0.01btc)

This is a very popular question that has been asked of me in various formulations more than once. Here is a recent answer about stepping on a foot. Here is another one, about ideological enmity. Here is one about psychological aggression. Here is one about the impossibility of getting away from an unpleasant neighbor. And here is one about stalking.

But, as one poet wrote—who, like all Soviet people, knew the ins and outs of the language of hatred—”the more times you see him, the more times you kill him!” So, I will take up your question and try to uncover the topic in a slightly new way.

As a starter, I suggest listening to Davud Zulumkhanov’s report at the seventh Adam Smith Readings in 2015 “On the Origin of Honesty”. There, he conveys a very important thesis:

An honest person cannot be insulted because he has no “honor”—that is a brigand’s term. Therefore, “insult” and “feeling insulted” are the weapons of brigands. Feeling insulted is a pretext for obtaining a “legal right to use violence.” An insult is a provocation of the other party to take actions that can be legally answered with violence.

Davud Zulumkhanov

So how can one influence the person insulting you so that they lose the desire to do it again? You can turn to Davud again and use his prescription:

A merchant cannot be insulted.

— You are a scoundrel, you are a villain, and your entire lineage were thieves!

And the merchant smiles and says:

— Yes, yes, but still, I won’t give it away for less than fifty.

Davud Zulumkhanov

However, it is unlikely that this advice fully answers your question, because such an answer does not guarantee that the brigand’s craving for insults will disappear. Perhaps you should respond in their own brigand language.

For example, Navalny accepted General Zolotov’s challenge in exact accordance with their brigand dueling code, choosing a weapon in which he was strong and the general was weak. The general backed out, and now, by the very laws of honor he himself appealed to, he was dishonored. Will his craving for violence disappear? Not necessarily. But the craving for insults—almost certainly.

Or, for instance, Kadyrov showed up before the Ingush elder Mukhazhir Nalgyev with a hundred people, claiming that the latter had made disrespectful remarks about him. But local residents began to gather to defend the elder, and what did this lead to? Kadyrov apologized and left. Kadyrov, unlike Zolotov, actually understands something about honor, which he demonstrated.

In the post about stepping on a foot, I described how the escalation of conflict occurs. If people had only escalation available among all conflict resolution tools, they would have run out very quickly. Well, you know all those tales that if you permit short-barreled firearms, these crazies will quickly shoot each other dead. But quite logical fears of such an outcome also lead to the development of such an important tool for de-escalating conflict as an apology.

Where is the highest probability of receiving an insult? Of course, on the internet. Because the internet is a gun-free zone. But go to a practical shooting competition, and there you will hear constant bowing and scraping: “esteemed shooter,” “esteemed judge.” Because everyone has a gun, plenty of ammo, and excitement—try not to be polite in such a case.

To summarize. Insults are countered by calmness, politeness, and firmness of position—that is, indicating, on one hand, your willingness to apologize if you have inadvertently offended someone, but on the other hand, your readiness to respond with force if the insulter does not apologize themselves. As for the prevention of insults, you will have to acquire a reputation as a person who is not worth insulting.