Military honor

Military honor is a complex phenomenon. Undoubtedly, it is inherent in the army and constitutes its characteristic feature in all epochs of human existence. The concept of military honor in different eras was reported in a different content, but it invariably contains something different from the concept of honor in general. Honor is not a legal concept. It is rooted exclusively in moral self-awareness and, without a formal foundation, seems as relative as the principles of morality. But it is not a moral principle, at least in its essential part it does not coincide with ethics . The concept of honor falls into the concept of personal honor ( officer , soldier, and so on) and collective. If from the point of view of personal honor, “honest” is identical with “moral” - and that, however, is not always the same - then from the point of view of honor of collective or corporate correlation it turns out different: “honest” can be indifferent in the moral sense, it may even turn out to be directly immoral. Meanwhile, each social group always has its own special corporate honor, which serves as a connecting beginning for its members and therefore is one of the conditions for the existence of this group, expressing the degree of cohesion of its members into one whole. Military honor is a corporate honor, and this is why it is different from honor in general. But it is different, in content, and from the honor of other social units, since the army is a unique unit.

The concept of military honor developed on the basis of feelings of pride . War is a heavy duty for man. It requires him to risk his own life, to bring the highest, most real good - life - as a sacrifice to the abstract idea of ​​the common good. To fulfill the function of war, therefore, an incentive is needed that would be able to suppress a person’s sense of personal self-preservation. This incentive can have a purely moral character - because no real good can compete with the good of life - and must be rooted in the nature of man - because, taken from the outside, he will not have sufficient intensity. Such an incentive is a feeling of personal pride. Satisfying him, though rude, but always producing the greatest effect, is external honors. Since ancient times, public consciousness has begun to develop a series of measures aimed at developing, through excitement in a person dedicated to war, feelings of ambition, a sense of self-esteem in him: the function of war acquires an honorable, even religious character; the exploits of courage, which is nothing more than a properly developed sense of pride, are extolled; winners are surrounded by a halo of glory. But all these measures, pursuing a special purpose, are one-sided and develop a sense of personal pride in only one direction - as an incentive necessary for war. Therefore, the concept of military honor gets the same one-sided character. The essence of war is a battle, and everything that makes up a “battle” with an enemy is “honest” for a warrior: this is his honor; on the contrary, that expresses evasion of the battle, at least out of a sense of compassion or humanity - "dishonest."

Along with a sense of personal pride, the concept of military honor is based on a sense of collective pride, which always develops with joint activity and is an essential factor in collective life. But since the army is a colossal unit, in terms of collective pride, the concept of corporate honor is not developed for the whole army as a whole, but the honor of individual military administrative or tactical units is the honor of a regiment , battery, company. Having such a deep justification, military honor is a positive condition for military life. Its decline would inevitably entail the inability for the troops to fulfill their assignment. But the one-sidedness of the concept of military honor and its corporate nature oblige to be extremely cautious about all issues connected with it. From the point of view of the interests of military affairs, it seems to be only a positive condition. From the state point of view, and even more so from the broad point of view of social life in general, it is also a positive condition, since the function of war is a state function, but at the same time it also contains elements of a negative condition, since its requirements conflict with the requirements of morality and since its extreme development leads to exceptional isolation of the troops. Representing a powerful force, the army, in the event of separation, can easily suppress both the state organization and all the foundations of social life. Therefore, the state and society, along with measures aimed at raising a sense of military honor in the army, create restrictions on its unilateral, extreme development. This includes the principle of exceptional fidelity to the throne and the fatherland for the military, and the principle of possible humanity in the function of war — the development of a feeling of compassion for a defeated enemy, the right to “beat” only an enemy soldier, not civilians of the enemy region, the obligation to respect the inviolability of private property in war and etc. All these restrictions, from the point of view of the interests of military affairs, are undoubtedly artificial, but they are absolutely necessary, because the function of the army is an official function.

However, from the point of view of military affairs, the issue of military honor has a flip side: this is the concept of corporate honor of individual military units. When military honor is understood in such a narrow sense, it serves as a useful factor in warfare; linking this military unit, it is a positive condition. But it contains an element of the separability of individual military units and, with extreme development, entails the disintegration of the army as a whole. The concept of the honor of a military uniform is generally too broad, it diffuses in consciousness, while the honor of an individual regiment, the honor of a regimental uniform is quite concrete and easily tangible. As a result of this, it is necessary, including from the point of view of the interests of military affairs, a dual attitude to the issue. The corporate honor of military units should be promoted - the creation and maintenance of traditions, honorary distinctions, etc. - but in the organization itself, they must consistently implement the principle of army unity — by uniting the command, an equation of the order of service, etc. The bearers and spokesmen of the idea of ​​military honor in the army are officers, since the service of the lower ranks is a duty service, by virtue of conscription or urgent employment. To protect the corporate honor of the officer class, special courts of honor are established (see Courts of the Society of Officers ).

Collective military honor is a necessary condition for the existence (unity) of a combat group and provides the opportunity to switch between a peaceful and military regime of life without destroying the social structure of the military themselves and the surrounding society. That is, honor maintains the border between the army protecting the interests of the surrounding society, and bandits acting against common interests.

YES. Volkogonov gives the following definition: "The honor of an officer is an expression of his consciousness of his dignity and readiness to fulfill his military duty to society." Personal dignity implies respect for oneself, awareness of one’s human rights, proper behavior.

• Valor
• Chivalry
• Bushido
• Honoring

• Military honor // Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary : in 86 volumes (82 volumes and 4 additional). - SPb. , 1890-1907.
• Military honor - an article in the Military Encyclopedic Dictionary. Moscow, Big Russian Encyclopedia, 2001.
• Military honor
• The concept of military honor
• Military honor and its transformation in culture