Word Of Honor? Or Contract?

Which is more valuable to you? Your word of honor or a legally binding contract you sign? There is at least one modern, industrialized nation that to this day culturally values your “gentleman’s handshake” more greatly than your signature on a piece of paper. Likely, there are more than one, due to a cultural thing.

From my reading and from my experience, Japan is such a place. And I expect it’s a trans-national cultural thing, and something we used to have in the US, before people of low morals de-stigmatized breaking one’s word of honor.

In Japan, your signature on a piece of paper carries much less weight than your actual word of honor, your actual promise. If you break your promise (which would be lying), you dishonor yourself. You also dishonor your employer and your associates and your friends. But most importantly, you dishonor your family (sometimes irreparably). You become an absolute disgrace to all who have connections to you, and they will do their best to distance themselves from you. And, ya know, I think that ain’t such a bad idea, yo. If people who break promises became Pariahs, the world would become a much healthier place.

In my last Ohio job, I worked for a Japanese-owned company. A large percentage of the employees there were Japanese citizens on US work visas. They absolutely valued personal honor. They absolutely valued your word. And if you broke your word you were a disgrace, not to be trusted in anything at all.

What brought this up? That’s the wrong question, actually. As the saying goes, “the answer is only important if the right question is asked”. Who brought this up? Perry Hood brought this up. If you’ve been a follower of this site for any time, you’ll know Perry Hood is a radical Leftist “absolute relativist” who comments on The First Street Journal under the name “Wagonwheel” (generic link in deference to the blog owner, who allows anonymity, even of malignant sorts, on his site (which means this link will not trackback to any article there)). Perry Hood made a promise some time ago not to comment on my articles, in my threads. He has previously “accidentally” done so, and when called on it, he has “given permission” for me to delete his comments. But in each of the most recent three days, Perry Hood has knowingly and intentionally commented on my TFSJ articles, claiming he has chosen to retract his promise (as if that is even honorably possible).

What made the difference? Convenience. Perry Hood found it highly inconvenient to keep his promise to not comment on my articles, thus Perry Hood decided he would be Dishohorable and disgrace himself by breaking his sworn oath not to comment on my articles. And in doing so, Perry Hood tried to lay the blame on others because I have forced him to keep his promise (by deleting all or most of each of his comments) and because the site owner has given me leeway to enforce Perry Hood’s promise.

In Modern-Day Japanese culture (and likely in the culture of the entirety of the Pacific Rim, as I have found occasion to speak in-depth with a Filipino businesswoman who lives in the same culture and has traveled to the US (only to be disgusted by San Fransisco elevator eyes)), Perry Hood would be a Pariah, a disgrace to himself, his family, his associates (and his employers if he weren’t already retired), and be cast out of civilized conversation and associations, due specifically to his Dishonorable actions. But, in Modern-Day radical Leftist US culture, it’s perfectly alright to lie and make an oath that you repeatedly break later under one condition: Keeping the oath you made inconveniences you to any degree whatsoever.

So, Perry Hood, the radical Leftist, self-proclaimed “Progressive” (read Socialist) from Delaware, has declared his promises to not be worth the breath it takes to make them, if they inconvenience him in the least, and that everyone else is to blame if they even deign to hold him to his self-admitted oaths.

UPDATE
I received a query from someone on FaceBook for whom I have great respect. The query went along the lines of “Isn’t a written contract a verbal agreement, only in writing?” That is absolutely right in an American world. And the written contract holds much greater weight in an American world, because it provides proof of the agreement. I’ll note that the promise Perry Hood made was, actually, in writing and posted for the entire world to see. So, that difference does not provide a mitigating factor for Perry Hood.

But let’s take it out of the Dishonorable Perry Hood realm (where he fails on both counts) and into the hypothetical realm, comparing cultures.

In much of modern, industrialized Japan: (In many areas and in many families)

A business contract is business.
If you violate that contract, it’s business and to be dealt with as business.

If you give a personal promise, it’s you, standing there naked with just your honor to clothe you.
If you dishonor your personal promise in any way, YOU are dishonored by your own actions.
If your family does not disown you and turn you into a Pariah, your family is likewise dishonored by accepting you. And they forever live in the shame and dishonor you have heaped upon them as being family of a loathesome, dishonorable person. (Think Star Trek TNG and the Klingons.)
If your friends and acquaintances do not turn their backs on you, they, too, become dishonorable because they kept their ties with a dishonorable person.
Likewise, a business who honors the dishonorable is dishonorable.
And the snowball grows large enough to tear an automobile from the road, sending it and its occupants into destruction.

No, in some cultures, even modern industrialized cultures, it is far worse to dishonor your personal oaths than to violate your business agreements.

And that is exactly what Perry Hood did, in intentionally violating his personal oath at least 5 times in 3 consecutive days. He not only brought shame upon himself but upon all who closely affiliate themselves with him, and upon all with whom he closely affiliates himself.