At a Minnesota Dairy Queen last week, a blind customer pulled out some money and accidently dropped a $20 bill. The customer just behind quickly picked up the bill and pocketed it. Joey Prusak, the Dairy Queen server, saw what happened, and directed the second customer to return the money. She refused. So Prusak expelled her from the restaurant, and gave the blind customer a twenty from his own pocket. Appreciative customers alerted Dairy Queen management, and Prusak’s story has gone viral.
Interestingly for our purposes, Prusak’s story is being described in the language of honor.
Yahoo: “Dairy Queen Employee’s Honorable Actions Praised Online”
DailyMail: “Honorable: Joey Prusak, 19, said that returning the money to the blind man ‘felt like it was the right thing to do’”.
Webpronews: “Honorable Dairy Queen Employee Does the Right Thing”
I think honor researchers have a lot to say about the “extra” condemnation we feel when someone wrongs a vulnerable party, and why we tend to call “honorable” those who protect the weak.
The extra harm explanation goes as so: “Well, the vulnerable are harmed more by injustices they suffer, so it makes sense we’re extra upset at those who harm the vulnerable.”
Certainly this may be true of some people, but this explanation doesn’t explain some phenomena we observe. For instance, last month, in nearby town, an elderly woman was slain in a burglary by a few teens. In the comment section, one woman writes,
I always find it ‘funny’ that they target the weak, old or sick. [That these offenders] can’t man up and take on someone of their equal stature. They would get their asses handed to them….
One hears this thing time and again in cases where the weak are victimized. And it seems to me an honor-intuition is at work here: If you’re going to wrongly victimize someone, then at least victimize an equal (i.e., do it honorably). Call this the taking candy from a baby explanation: victimizing a weaker party is dishonorable, as well as wrong in the usual ways.
On the flip side, those who protect the weak from injustice are viewed as more honorable. If Prusak had given a perfectly able person a twenty upon his having it stolen, would Prusak be viewed as honorable? Why aren’t those who send money to the poor and sick on a daily basis considered honorable? What set Prusak apart from the charitable person was that his action came off to us as a defense of the weak, and not just benevolent or altruistic.
I think we often categorize immorally aggressive actions as challenges or competitive. When we do, this activates our honor intuitions, which tell us that this is an unfair challenge or competition. Thus, we say strange things from an ethical perspective, such as “pick on someone your own size.” The honor intuition, I would argue, is impeccable. The problem occurs at the first step, when we sloppily categorize mere aggression as challenge or competition.
Honor Ethics 
Laurie Johnson said:
I think you are absolutely right–I thought immediately, what kind of coward thinks to take advantage of a blind person. It seemed particularly weak. The fact that people have this “honor intuition” is a good sign as it may form the basis for a revival of the honor motivation. Pointing out the contrast between the coward and the young man who did the right thing is exactly what you have to do to encourage others to be so motivated.
LikeLike
Ryan Rhodes said:
I think the depiction of the thief as “cowardly” in your comment is also telling, Laurie. Part of what seems to be going on in cases such as these is that there is an extra level of contempt for the perpetrator. Her actions would have been wrong regardless, but the implication is that she wouldn’t have even been bold enough to attempt her wrongdoing had the victim not been blind. Thus, she fails on an additional level–by preying on him she is not only vicious, but pathetic as well.
In a related sense, one reason for the characterization of Prusak as “honorable” may be due to the fact that he was directly taking action in a particular moment. The tendency among most people is not to get involved in matters that they don’t have to–whether due to apprehension, situational factors, or whatever else. Prusak’s willingness to “step in” to do what is right is admirable in a way which is distinct from general benevolence, sending money to the poor, and so on. That seems to be at least part of the motivation for the honor intuition. I think that what these insights point to is that Honor is strongly connected to Action–both the will to act in the first place, and the fact that some acts are ruled out as unthinkable for a worthy person.
LikeLike