We differ on the matter and I respect your opinion. But sometimes a man's life is the greatest price he can pay to prove a point. If I am dining with my lover (we all know I am gay) and someone insults us and then threatens us - honor demands that I take action to protect my lover as well as myself, to defend my right to act as all others do. If he challanges me and my fate is met, then at least I have died with honour. A duel is not theft or murder for both parties have agreed. Both men are willing to sell their lives as dearly as they can to prove their own worthy, before own consciouses as well as the eyes of whatever gods lie beyond.
Were a man to attack and kill a man who did not consent to said duel than yes, it is murder. And you are correct in saying that some atrocities have ben committe in his name but so have those who have died tryint to stop it. Case study as follows:
My greatgrandfather. A Genernalleutnant in the German Army. An aristocrat and a soldier, he fought as best he could when called upon. He was decorated in WWI and spent the inner war years as part of the Reichswehr, bored and tired. The coming of the second world war gave him purpose again and he fought with a devotion to his duty that any nation would command. The war was good for him - and his family.
However, things were not well in Germany. Though not well known, the man who had orchestrated Germany's rise to power was mad and was 'purifying' his own country and all the conquered lands. He was marching millions to their slaughter because of their sexual orientation, their race, their religion.
My grandfather however, was not affected. No member of his family as jewish, no friend jewish - he was totally unscathed by these events. Millions wer being murdered, true enough - but it did not affect him.
This in mind, he chose to involve himself in a conspiracy that would surely end his life it failed - and he may even lose in trying to make it succeed. He participated actively and the coup failed and he lost his life thanks to the murderer's henchmen. He died for those for whom he had no relation and no personal stake - he did it because to know of it and do nothing was dishonourable. An honourable man he was and he, like so many others, could not simply sit by and watch. Simply praying for their safety was not enough.
Honour commands many men, especially in those atrocities, to do things they would not do - to rise above the medium and acheive greatness either alive or posthumous for things they did or tried to do.
In America, during the Civil War, many men in the North were not affected by salvery. Indeed, some had never even seen a negro. But when the call came to free them they did, and a great many laid down their lives tothat end. They were not affected but could not ignore that they had a duty theywere honour bound to carry out. Were honour not there, the army would have held only those been that would have profited from the loss of slavery and perhaps a few mercenaries - and after their deaths slavery would have continued.
Honour sometimes has its limits as in attacking noncombatants in peace or war time, or refusing to grant shelter and aide to prisoners of war because they do not worpship your god - these acts I do not permit and would not tolerate were I able to stop them.
But honour as a whole can be a very helpful thing, and can sometimes be all a man has.
Do nations go to war yes - but ioft great feats are accomplished, glory is won, medicine and technology profit.
Do men kill each other yes - but both men can look their heads high knowing their honour was satisfied.
Rivalries occur - but oft the week or useless are culled.
Honor and pride go hand in hang - and like all things, with moderation can lead to better thiongs.
[size=1]Requiem en Terra Pax[/size]
