Yeah, I know. Its been a while. Ok, a loooong while.
Generally saying that I've been busy is just a euphemism for saying that I was too lazy. Honestly, there is truth to both. Don't you just love honesty? :-)
I can't help it. Its a product of my high moral standards. Or is it.......????

How did you like the way I segued into my topic tonight? Pretty cute, eh? :-)
So here I go on honesty... something that I hold sacred. To me, honesty is one of the pillars of ...
well... not humanity. Can I say animality?

You can see where I'm going with this, can't you?

No, I haven't had a recent breach of trust. I didn't get swindled. (unless you know something I don't) My integrity hasn't been scrutinized. So where is this coming from?
Honestly (there I go again) it just popped into my head right after I said there was some truth to being busy and lazy. But right as I started on this topic, the question of the origin of honesty sprang to mind. When did honesty become a moral obligation? Who ever deemed dishonesty as as bad?

I'm shooting from the hip here, folks, so just go with me on this.

In my exploration of this topic I have to consider different applications of honesty and how it is beneficial to the one who commits honesty. Or how about the recipient of honesty. Who really benefits from honesty? As I'm pondering the possible threads to this chain of thinking I realize that people have probably written 200 page dissertations on this stuff. I hope I'm not getting in over my head here. After all, can honesty really be explored objectively?

So, let's dig in. As good a place to start as any is with the origin of the word. At least in its English form. I did a little checking and there are no mysterious origins to honor. According to The Barhart Concise Dictionary of Etymology it is derived from Latin honestus which expectantly means respected, truthful, or fair. No news bulletin there.

Something occurs to me, though. Respected, truthful, and fair are human values. People decide what is fair. Respect is a little less easy to attribute solely to humans, but still workable. And truthful implies an acknowledgement of fact. So does this mean that humans also decide what is honest? If this is true, then honesty can't really be explored objectively.

To twist this thought a little, lets look at this more philosophically. Was there honor before man? This reminds me of something Nietzsche pondered... "Did God create man or did man create God? I'm not well versed enough with Nietzsche to know if he ever proffered an answer to his own query, but I think the application of the question fits.

In order to explore this I have to view this matter from a more biological angle. More specifically, evolution. This ties back into my earlier question about who benefits from honesty.
I'm certainly not the first to pose this question. Robert Wright, who authored The Moral Animal: Pantheon Books 1994, discusses Charles Darwin and evolution in a number of places. He wrote, "Truth and honesty are never favored by natural selection in and of themselves. Natural selection neither 'prefers' honesty nor 'prefers' dishonesty. It just doesn't care."
So does honesty really matter when survival is at stake? What about altruism? Can someone do something dishonest in order to procure a greater justice? Robin Hood would say "Absolutely!"

But I'm not going to get into the parameters of honesty here. Or honor for that matter. Honor has become so twisted these days its almost impossible to convince someone that defending their perception of honor is misplaced. See what I mean.... there is that man-made concept again.... perception.

When a person's honor and integrity is threatened, they are likely to lose objectivity and act on a moral imperative to act on their perceived threat. The key, once again, being the perception of a threat.

Any person engaging in a discourse on honor would be remiss to omit discussing the religious implications here. People live in the constant fear of being cast into eternal damnation if they so much as even conceive dishonest thought, let alone act dishonestly. So how is honor served when your instinct and biological imperative are in conflict with your religious imperative?
That, my friends, is what we call a dilemma.

Suppose you are lost in the desert. Its been two days since you had any water. You are already suffering the effects of dehydration. You encounter a well equipped stranger setting up camp. You ask for water and he refuses to share any and he tells you to keep going and not to bother him. Later he falls asleep and he has water all over the place. Knowing there is no risk of being caught, do you steal some water?

Of course this scenario is highly unlikely and unreasonable. It is supposed to be. It illustrates a conflict. It pits a biological imperative against a moral imperative. My first thought would be to take some water. My justification is that morality does me no good if I'm dead. Of course there are those that will argue about tainting of the soul and it was a test that I failed therefore I'm damned. So there never will be an answer acceptable to everyone.

This brings me to my concluding point. Despite some clear universal ideas of honor, there will always be varying perceptions because people simply have different value systems.
I think George Carlin did a great job of boiling the 10 commandments down to 2 basic commandments....

"Thou shalt always be honest and faithful to the provider of thy nookie & Thou shalt try real hard not to kill anyone, unless of course they pray to a different invisible man than you."

All of the other commandments address honor in one form or another anyway. So why not keep it simple? Keep it honest. Here he is....
Enjoy!