| By: Brant |
The question itself, refutes itself.
One does not "instruct" another person to behave honorably, at least in any true and meaningful sense of the word. It is not something that another can just order someone to do, or cause to begin in that fashion, like telling someone to "have good manners." Honor is a totally different thing. To behave honorably, a person must be able to determine their own course of action. They must be able to determine for themselves what they feel is "right" and consistently apply that to all situations. Honor isnt a reflection of simple behavior, but of one's values and convictions, and how well those things are lived up to as we face life's challenges. You can tell someone to "be good," to "behave," or to "obey," but you don't tell another person to "have honor." The notion of such a thing itself as being the motive for it's possession, undermines the whole point of what it is. Is the other person truly acting with honor or just obeying? Telling a slave to "act with honor" does not make her possess honor. Honor is literally a possession, and something that as the word suggests, only the free can own. If she does as she is told, she is not acting with honor but is obeying the command. It is a demonstration of her devotion. What if the man instructed her to "not act with honor," but simply obey every command he gives. Would she suddenly be dishonorable? No. In neither case does the honor assessment apply. She isnt honorable for doing as she is told, nor is she dishonorable, regardless of what the command is. In both cases she is obeying and doing as she is commanded. That is the constant throughout. A slave that is told to poison another person isnt behaving dishonorably at all. The honor question is applied to the master for he is the one initiating the action - he is the one in control. The slave is only the tool though which his will is exercised. That is really the key to the whole thing.- Brant
© 2001 All Rights Reserved
© 2001 All Rights Reserved
