Greek Honor Vs. BYU Honor

Honor is a flexible concept. Honor to Achilles was very different than honor to Kleibos and Biton (Herodotus 1.31). Yet, it is perhaps the most ubiquitous and widely accepted rationale for action throughout the ages. Specific prescriptions for honorable conduct evolve with the rest of civilization, yet, honor, the central framework of moral direction and self-governance, undergirds both ancient Greek and modern BYU civilization.

Consider the evolution from Hobbes’ brutish and nasty state of nature towards a platonic ideal civilization. In a state of nature, every man is an island. Instead, decisions are based on immediate evolutionary requirements. A single person can only extend influence as far as his or her direct power permits. A subordinate will unerringly act in the subordinate’s best evolutionary interest. An alpha can influence a subordinate’s “best interest” with a threat of corporal punishment or immediate reward. Examples of these types of organization can be witnessed in wolf packs and grazing herds. Such organizations must remain small, and thus ineffectual, because the alpha’s influence is as limited as the alpha.

Consider instead, an organization Homer describes in The Iliad. Agamemnon was able to organize a massive expedition of kings, including godlike Achilles, due to a new motivator beyond Agamemnon’s personal control: honor. Surely, threat and reward played some part, but the circumstances of warfare make the ultimate motivator clear. Achilles knowingly walked into death for the promise of glory. “Two fates sweep me on to my death. If I stay here and fight, I’ll never return home, but my glory will be undying forever” (Homer, Iliad IX 415-429). Achilles' comrades, though they had no guarantee of honor or death, were willing to risk the latter for the former. No physical reward nor threat can outlast death; honor can.

A pack of wolves will fight for food, but they will not willingly die for the sake of the pack. Honorable society is unique in the willingness of individuals to sacrifice for the civilization. Honor is an effective motivator because it is not bound by the finite constraints of a central authority. Instead of relying on the carrots and sticks of the pack, honor makes men their own rulers. “We are both warlike and wise… warlike, because self-control contains honor as a chief constituent, and honor bravery. And we are wise, because we are educated with too-little learning to despise the laws, and with too severe a self-control to disobey them” (Thucydides 1.83). Here, Archidamus agrees that honor begets self-control, bravery, and obedience to law.

On the other hand, honor as a motivator has a substantial set of limitations. It can only enforce principles, not specific actions. For example, honor can dictate that citizens defend their countrymen, especially beautiful Helen, but it cannot direct them to attack a specific city-state unless (as in the case of a feud) attacking that city-state is part of the honor code. In short, Honor enforces an ethic, but not a mortal or eternal will.

The fact that honor merely enforces an ethic helps explain the varying prescriptions of honor. In American civilization, honor does not dictate suicide to the losers of significant contests. Contrastingly, the Greek ethic, enforced by honor, cost Ajax his life for losing a debate to Odysseus (Exekias). The most successful civilizations take care to inculcate the right values. When asked how he could govern so many people so well, the prophet Joseph replied, “I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves” (The Organization of the Church)

The principles on which the Greeks built can be seen in the praise of their heroes. “The fame of her virtue will never die. The immortal gods will lift a song for all mankind, a glorious song in praise of self-possessed Penelope." (Homer Odyssey XXIV 215-216) Penelope’s summative epithet is “self-possessed”. Thus far, the argument has established that Honor begets self-governance; here it is established that self-governance begets honor. It is a virtuous cycle. To be governed not by a tyrant, or one’s passions, but to govern oneself with honor itself is a most honorable attribute. The other praise Homer sings of Penelope is virtue.

Interestingly, the same root word is used no less than four times in BYU’s own honor code statement: twice in the 13th article of faith preamble (Virtuous); once in the italicized statement, “Moral virtues encompassed in the gospel of Jesus Christ”; and once in the bullet list of principles, “Live a chaste and virtuous life.” Admittedly, the parallel is partially casual. The Greek word ἀρετῇ more nearly means “excellence” than virtue as understood today. It is the same word that the Greek virtue ethic revolves around. Yet, the relationship is still telling to both civilizations; some concept of virtue is the fruit of honor. From this passage, it is clear that, to the Greeks, excellence was honorable.

The type of skills that elicited honor differed from caste to caste and certainly between genders. Male Greek heroes were to be “doers of deeds and speakers of words”, while female heroes, like Penelope, should be artists and organizers (Homer, Iliad, IX 417). Telemachus said to Penelope “you should go back upstairs and take care of spinning and weaving, and have the maids do theirs. Speaking is for men…” (Homer, Odyssey I 376-378). Penelope’s own view of honorable activity seems to coincide somewhat with that of her son. On Odysseus’ supposed death, she began work on an epic burial shroud, that demonstrated both her craftsmanship and cunning, as it was a ruse to buy time (Homer Odyssey II 95-105). That was how she could bring honor to her house, husband, and self. Therefore, while honor is the same between castes and genders, the virtue it reinforces, is distinct.

In BYU’s own honor code there is a slight difference of what the honor code office deems honorable for men and women. The code makes no distinction between genders for five pages of writing. The one exception is a single paragraph describing the dress code for men and for women. While a detailed analysis of the paragraphs would be ideal, suffice it to say, the differences are aesthetic. The underlying principles of cleanliness and modesty are universal. While the honor code does little to distinguish between genders, broader society makes a large distinction between gender roles. The differing responsibilities outlined in The Family: A Proclamation to the World should make that perfectly clear. Like Greek honor, here it seems that ideal BYU honor is not so much the specifier of activities as it is the enforcer of principles instilled elsewhere.

Here lies the biggest difference between Greek honor and 21st-century BYU honor. Greek honor enforced Greek virtue through self-governance. Certainly, self-governance could not bend all the Greeks all the time. When internal honor failed to elicit sufficient self-control, the Greeks relied on peer pressure to enforce the dictates of honor. To shirking Paris, Hector retorted, “I don’t understand you, Paris. No one could slight your work in battle. You’re a strong fighter, but you slack off. You don’t have the will” Paris had the excellence of a warrior but not the honor-begotten self-control to engage in it. Hector continues, “It breaks my heart to hear what the Trojans say about you” (Homer Iliad VI 360-370) One could go so far as to say that honor is nothing more than the praise of one’s peers and dishonor, their jeers. This argument goes too far, but it is certain that whether through the sentiment of one’s peers or through some inborne sense of honor, virtue had no need for enforcement by a central power.

BYU honor began similarly. The most widely spread quote regarding honor comes from an early founder of the school, Karl G. Maeser.

Place me behind prison walls--walls of stone ever so high, ever so thick, reaching ever so far into the ground--there is a possibility that in some way or another I may escape; but stand me on the floor and draw a chalk line around me and have me give my word of honor never to cross it. Can I get out of the circle? No. Never! I'd die first! (Honor code office)

 Please note, that in Maeser’s rhetorical scenario, there does not need to be anybody else near-by for the chalk line to mean something. In this ideal world, no social pressure is needed. Maeser’s statement unequivocally defines the enforcer of his word to be honor, through his own self-governance.

Today, honor begotten self-governance seems to be insufficient. The students’ word of honor to live the code is given in every interview leading to an ecclesiastical endorsement. In addition to a figurative circle of chalk, the university has added 3930 words of legal language (not including appendices) in the Honor Code Investigation and Administrative Review Process. For comparison, as long as this essay is, it only has 1722 words. This documentation describes a set of processes enacted by a central authority to serve as a barrier (like Maeser’s stone walls) on top of the chalk. It is ironic that an “honor code” cannot rely on honor to enforce it.

Maybe the decline of honor is due to an increased lack of self-control from incessant coddling in the rising generations. If BYU wants to devolve power from the center, then the students need to learn self-governance. Perhaps, part of the shift is due to declining social pressures. As Hugh B. Brown, an apostle from the 1960’s and author of “God is The Gardener” stated to a BYU audience, “some honorable students here get the mistaken idea that of all the sins in the world, tattling is the worst.” He goes on to state that certainly saints ought to be more concerned with our own lives then “that of our brother” but that “loyalty to a chum who is a chump” (“chump” because of broken word and clandestine living) is a mistake (Brown). In Greek terms, maybe if there were more Hectors to berate Parises, BYU would not need the centralized enforcement process it has. However, it is worth considering that the sheer size of the BYU community precludes peer enforcement of the honor code. At any rate, murmuring students and extensive enforcement process indicates that BYU honor is a poor enforcer of the BYU Honor Code.

Works Cited

Brown, Hugh B. https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/hugh-b-brown/personal-liberty-vs-social-control-2/?M=A.

Exekias. Ajax Committing Suicide. ~530 BC. Black Figure Vase. Château-musée de Boulogne-sur-Mer, France.

Finley, M. I., et al. The Portable Greek Historians: the Essence of Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, Polybius. Penguin, 1977.

“Honor Code Office: Home, Brigham Young University, https://honorcode.byu.edu/index.php?option=com_ezine&Itemid=4613.

Homer, et al. The Essential Homer: Selections from the Iliad and the Odyssey. Hackett, 2000.

“Honor Code Investigation and Administrative Review Process.” Honorcode.byu.edu, Brigham Young University, 11 Aug. 2008, https://policy.byu.edu/view/index.php?p=171.

 In "The Organization of the Church," Millennial Star, 15 Nov. 1851, p. 339