• About
  • Instructions for Contributors
  • Honor Scholarship

Honor Ethics

~ Devoted to the study of honor as an ethical value

Honor Ethics

Category Archives: honor system

Assuming Virtue in a Society that Assumes Vice: the case of honor system markets

07 Tuesday Apr 2015

Posted by dan demetriou in economics of honor, honor and political philosophy, honor system, philosophy of honor

≈ 3 Comments

Every autumn, a neighbor up the street sets out a couple hundred pumpkins, along with a metal cash box and placard reading, “Honor System: $5 for small pumpkins, $6 for large ones.” Inspired to learn more about whether selling things on the “honor system” really works, I came across an interesting little book called Honor System Marketing: Discovering Honesty, Trust, and Profit Amongst the Goodness of People, by Jeff McPherson. McPherson is an agriculture consultant and farmer who has been “honor system marketing”—that is, selling produce at unsupervised stands on the “honor system”—for decades. After travelling and meeting other honor marketers from across the US, he wrote this book about the advantages, pitfalls, and philosophy of honor marketing.

honor system marketing

Apparently, honor system marketing (HSM) can have some financial benefits. Eliminating cashiers means eliminating a significant cost of running a market. And since markets operating on the honor system don’t need to be staffed, they can be left open around the clock, even on holidays. But there are other non-remunerative advantages, too, McPherson tells us.

One is that HSM forces us to be more trusting of others. According to McPherson, one of the biggest challenges of being an honor system marketer is resting easy at night, knowing that your market is exposed to theft. McPherson is certainly a practical man: he has no patience with thieves, and he takes proactive measures if he detects (or is tipped off about) shoplifting. He also urges would-be honor system marketers to keep in mind that theft occurs at staffed markets also, and that the savings on employee salary often is greater than the losses from any increased theft. But setting all that aside, McPherson estimates that only about 2% of his customers have ever stolen anything. Since in most HSM scenarios theft is surprisingly low, HSM tends to make us more trusting of our neighbors and complete strangers alike.

Much the same occurs on the other side of the transaction. Surprised customers tell McPherson that they enjoy feeling trusted enough to shop without supervision. However, McPherson does lose a certain percentage of customers to “paranoia”:

Even though they are totally honest, they are still a bit insecure about shopping where there is no attendant. They will avoid contact with situations that associate them with dishonesty.

And here we arrive at an important lesson about honor system marketing: that it assumes virtue in a society that assumes vice. Apparently, our society assumes vice to such a degree that some of us feel uncomfortable being trusted even when we are trustworthy. Why would that happen? Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...

Honor for introduction to ethics courses

20 Tuesday May 2014

Posted by dan demetriou in honor system, philosophy of honor, stories of honor

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

introduction to honor ethics

This blog is meant to be a resource for bouncing ideas around and alerting honor researchers to new work on the topic. In that spirit, I just completed a working draft of this Freshman-level introduction to honor ethics, and I thought I’d share it here.

It’s written somewhat in the style of Russ Shafer-Landau’s Fundamentals of Ethics, which I use as a textbook. Like many contemporary introductory ethics texts, this piece focuses on ideas, principles, and intuitions and ignores scholarly figures and intellectual history.

Please note that it’s an “opinionated” introduction, as it reflects the agonistic conception of honor I favor. It distinguishes between honor as a good and honor as a deontological moral theory. It connects the agonistic elements to honor’s associations with integrity, anti-bullying, and forceful resistance.

I’d certainly welcome any suggestions for improvement. Also, please let me know if it is of any use to you in your courses.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...

Dairy Queen hero Joey Prusak, and the honorableness of protecting the weak

23 Monday Sep 2013

Posted by dan demetriou in honor code, honor in contempory media, honor system, social psychology of honor, stories of honor

≈ 2 Comments

prusakAt 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.

Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...

Honor’s roots in male-male competition

30 Tuesday Jul 2013

Posted by dan demetriou in anthropology of honor, biology of honor, ethology of honor, evolution of honor, honor and sport, honor code, honor in literature, honor system, philosophy of honor, social psychology of honor

≈ Leave a comment

Some social psychologists have recently proposed taxonomies of the fundamental moral sentiments . . ..The emotions and practices of honor—esteem, contempt, respect, deference—developed, it is reasonable to suppose, with hierarchy in troops of early humans. Is honor, in this way, atavistic? It’s not a worry we can immediately dismiss.

–Kwame Appiah, The Honor Code, pp. 183-184

Some sort of moral pluralism—at least on the psychological level—is increasingly probable: a recent consensus statement by a number of cutting-edge moral psychologists affirms Jonathan Haidt et al.’s hypothesis that there are multiple building blocks of morality, each with its own evolutionary history.

Notably, Haidt’s taxonomy recognizes only one moral foundation that concerns rank: authoritarianism. But we have ample evidence in, say, athletic or academic rankings, that some rankings are not authoritarian. Also notable is that none of Haidt et al.’s (currently six) moral foundations has norms rooted in sexual selection, which is enormously influential in shaping behavior in many species, including us. Third, as Haidt’s taxonomy expanded, it lost the ability to account for shame and contempt, one of the “big three” condemnatory affect pairings that Moral Foundations theory was designed to accommodate. Fourth, Haidt sees his “harm/care” foundation as based in maternal instincts. This raises the question: could there be an ethos that is based on some sort of adaptive challenge males might have faced more often?

I think the honor ethos is one of these innate moral systems, and that honor fills all four gaps in Haidt’s theory.

Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...

Jews and honor in literature, pt. 2: honor vs. purity

01 Saturday Jun 2013

Posted by dan demetriou in honor code, honor in literature, honor system, philosophy of honor, social psychology of honor, stories of honor

≈ 2 Comments

As discussed in the previous post, O’Brian’s Richard Canning, despite his aptitude and desire to be a naval officer, was excluded from the world of martial honor because he was a Jew. Thus, the naval officer Stephen Maturin strangely honors aCanning by noticing Canning’s insult and challenging him to a duel. The theme of Jews being shut out of the world of honor is also quite prominent in Walter Scott’s Ivanhoe. This time it is a Jewish woman, Rebecca, who is barred from assuming the social station her talents and natural nobility entitle her to. In this post, I focus on the way religion and notions of purity differ from the warrior-aristocratic norms of honor, and note how Scott skillfully uses medieval anti-Semitism to contrast these two ethics.

Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...

Jews and honor in literature, pt. 1

31 Friday May 2013

Posted by dan demetriou in honor code, honor in literature, honor system, stories of honor

≈ 1 Comment

The relationship of Jews to honor should be discussed more (it’s broached here and there by William Ian Miller, but I don’t know of a sustained discussion of the topic). Anyway, I thought I’d take note of a couple fictional episodes that deal with the issue. I’m not sure how much they shed light on Jewish themes in particular, but they do illuminate the characteristic way honor (at least on my way of looking at honor) understands respecting another person. They also show how honor is particularly good at overriding ingroup/outgroup, us/them mental frameworks, which of course play such a big role in anti-Semitism.

H.M.S. Surprise, by Patrick O'BrianThe first episode comes from The H.M.S. Surprise, the third novel in Patrick O’Brian’s Aubrey-Maturin series (of Master and Commander fame). Our protagonist, Stephen Maturin, is in love with the mistress of a wealthy Jewish merchant, Richard Canning, and proposes marriage to her. Canning overhears and, in a fit of jealous rage, deals Maturin a savage open-handed blow. The offense is not apologized for and Maturin, although bearing no animus toward Canning as a person, asks a Marine captain to be his second and demand satisfaction on his behalf.

Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...

Honor and Ethics mini-conference: speaker bios and abstracts

03 Tuesday Apr 2012

Posted by dan demetriou in announcements, anthropology of honor, history of honor, honor code, honor system, philosophy of honor, political science of honor

≈ Leave a comment

The 36th Annual Midwest Philosophy Colloquium on “Honor and Ethics” is this Friday, April 6, at the University of Minnesota, Morris. The schedule and other particulars can be found here.

We at UMM are very excited to be hosting this first-of-its-kind event!

About our speakers (in order of presentation):

Ryan Rhodes is a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Oklahoma, where in May he will defend a dissertation on Honor. He has previously co-authored a chapter of Batman and Philosophy, and presented a paper on the relationship of Newcomb’s problem to freedom and foreknowledge. His other research interests include the use of fiction in philosophical illumination, and situationist challenges to virtue ethics.

Stephen Mathis is an Associate Professor of Philosophy at Wheaton College in Norton, Massachusetts, where he teaches courses in Social/Political Philosophy and Legal Philosophy, and also serves as Pre-Law Advisor. His primary area of research concerns action theoretical issues within the criminal law, but he has also written on moral theory, moral issues in education, and moral and economic issues in sports.

Shannon French is Director of the Inamori International Center for Ethics and Excellence at Case Western Reserve University. Prior to leading the Inamori Center, Dr. French was the associate chair of the Department of Leadership, Ethics and Law at the United States Naval Academy. Dr. French’s research and scholarly interests are primarily in the area of military ethics, but also include leadership ethics, professional ethics, moral psychology, biomedical and environmental ethics. Her The Code of the Warrior: Exploring Warrior Values, Past and Present (2003) features a forward by Senator John McCain.

Laurie Johnson is a Professor of Political Science at Kansas State University, specializing in political thought. She is the author of five books, including Thucydides, Hobbes, and the Interpretation of Realism; Political Thought: A Guide to the Classics; Hobbes’s Leviathan; Thomas Hobbes: Turning Point for Honor; and soon to be published Locke and Rousseau: Two Enlightenment Responses to Honor. Dr. Johnson is Director of the Primary Texts Certificate at Kansas State.

Frank Stewart is a Professor Emeritus at the department of Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. His research interests are in social anthropology, linguistics, and the law, with a special focus on the Bedouin of the Sinai. He has taught or held research appointments at New York University, Harvard Law School, and the Princeton Institute for Advanced Studies. Honor (1994) is one of his many publications.

Lad Sessions is a Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at Washington and Lee University, where he started teaching in 1971. He is the author of three books, the most recent being Honor for Us: A Philosophical Analysis, Interpretation, and Defense (2010). Dr. Sessions’ many academic publications discuss issues ranging from philosophy of religion, Rawls on liberalism, the philosophy of science, and the nature of sportsmanship.

Abstracts

Ryan Rhodes, “Honor and the Moral Value of Reputation”

Some of the most common objections to honor-based ethics concern its emphasis on pride and reputation, and the charge that the person of honor has an essentially backwards moral orientation. On one hand, he cares too much about other people and their perceptions, to the detriment of his virtue and authenticity. On another, he cares too much about himself and his regard, to the detriment of others’ welfare. Hence, this feature of honor is seen as a hindrance to true morality. I argue that this view rests on a mistake. That is not to say that there is nothing to the objections in question, but rather that they fail to recognize a crucial role of public esteem in the moral life. Pride and reputation are essential constituents of good character, because the ability to exercise virtue in a community depends in part on how one is perceived. The positive regard of others is something we ought to care about for specifically moral reasons, because it enables one to engage and lead those others in the quest for greater human excellence. As such, the honorable person rightly cares about being viewed favorably, because he cares about the values his life stands for and their relation to the good of other people.

Stephen Mathis, “Justifying Academic Honor Codes”

Academic honor codes at colleges and universities seek to (and very often do) express the values and commitments of the academy, often more explicitly and powerfully than any other feature of academic institutions. For this reason alone, academic honor codes are worth studying more closely. In this talk, I argue that honor codes help to define the individual academic communities in which they arise, and the features those various codes—and communities—share are characteristic of the academy as a whole. If I am right about this claim, then academic honor codes would identify and reinforce the boundaries of the academic community as a moral community; so characterized, academic honor codes would warrant attention, even from those at institutions without them. The best justification for such codes is one which prioritizes the academic pursuit of knowledge above many other interests, including the individual self-interest of the students subject to those codes.

Shannon French, “Honor Through the Ages:  Differing Conceptions of a Key Concept at the Heart of the Warrior’s Code”

I will examine how the concept of honor was understood in different historical warrior cultures, including those of the Roman legions and the Japanese samurai. I will also consider the idealized accounts of warrior honor that are depicted in classic works as Homer’s epics and ancient Icelandic sagas. Finally, I comment on what role the concept of honor can and should play in the culture of the modern US military.

Laurie Johnson, “Honor in Today’s America: The Liberal Origins of Honor’s Decline”

I will discuss the importance of honor in three areas of contemporary significance: the economy, the family, and academics. All three have been negatively impacted by a loss of honor as a motivation for doing the right thing. The economic crisis that began in 2007 was, by many accounts, partly brought on by a lack of concern for honor and integrity in the banking and investment industries. The ongoing disintegration of the American family reveals the loss of honor and responsibility in our closest relationships. Integrity and honor in academic endeavors has also declined, with an increase in plagiarism and other forms of cheating. I will also briefly discuss my research, which connects key classical liberal ideas with the decline of honor as a motivation in modern society. Liberal ideals such as individualism and individual rights, the contract as the model for personal relationships, materialism, and the elevated importance of privacy, all can be connected with the decline in the importance of honor. I ask, can there be an honor code compatible with liberalism?

Frank Stewart, “An Anthropologist Looks at Honor”

Perhaps the most characteristic feature of Bedouin law is a cluster of institutions centered on the concept of ‘ard. I suggest that Bedouin ‘ard is a right of a particular kind, and that in the major European languages the word ‘honor’ also often refers to the same kind of right. I shall call that right personal honor. Its main characteristics are: (i) it is a right to respect, (ii) it can be lost, (iii) in order to retain it one must follow certain rules, the honor code, and (iv), there is at least one word or phrase that is regularly used to refer to this right. Personal honor is therefore part of what may be called a (personal) honor system, and these four items define such a system, albeit in an extremely rough and ready way. For an honor system to function there must also, of course, be an honor group, that is, a set of people who have a joint commitment to the honor code. The notion of an honor system represents an attempt to develop a cross-cultural concept from the notion of honor as it functioned until recently in certain strata of Western societies, and as it still functions among the Bedouin.  Honor systems are probably also to be found in other Middle Eastern, Central Asian and North African societies, though our information about them is at best sketchy. Whether such systems are, or were, to be found elsewhere in the world, I do not know. My hope is that if this question is addressed, then the answer will not only bring new facts to light, but also lead to improvements to the crude model of such a system that is presented here.

Lad Sessions, “Honor, Morality, Brotherhood”

This discussion is a conceptual analysis—with a wee bit of prescription. I regard my analyses as more provocative than conclusive; while I do hope they will prove persuasive, perhaps because they harmonize with unanalyzed concepts you already have, I will be content if they merely (!) induce further reflection. The proposals are no mere academic exercises; they have substantial implications.  I intend to highlight some important resemblances and some vital differences among three concepts that are distinct but which are easily confused and conflated, with arguably dangerous results. I call these three concepts Honor, Morality, and Brotherhood, and I intend to stretch them as widely as possible, beyond their origins in certain local contexts. They are familiar to all, yet easily misunderstood—or perhaps I should say quite differently understood. I have three basic tasks, each three-fold: (i) to sketch my account of each of the three concepts; (ii) to highlight three important similarities and differences among them; and (iii) to suggest three important issues, or lines of inquiry, that result from seeing things this way.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...

Should “Stolen Valor” Be Illegal?

06 Tuesday Mar 2012

Posted by dan demetriou in honor code, honor in contempory media, honor system, philosophy of honor, political science of honor

≈ 6 Comments

Samuel Johnson said every man thinks meanly of himself for not having been a soldier. This seems to hold true even today, given the propensity people have of concocting false stories about military service and awarded medals. It turns out that there is a law prohibiting this, and the Supreme Court is now considering whether that law is Constitutional.

Because of the Stolen Valor Act, which was passed in 2006, it a federal crime to “to falsely represent oneself as having received any U.S. military decoration or medal,” and offenders can be sentenced to up to a year in prison. The current legal challenge, United States v. Alvarez, argues that such lies fall within one’s free speech rights.

One thing that the Justices seem divided on is whether false claims to honor cause any “harm,”or whether it is important to the “public interest” that such lies be discouraged. Taking up the perspective inclined to answer “no” to these questions, Justice Sotomayor challenged the prosecution, asking:

Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...

What’s the Problem of Honor?

18 Tuesday Oct 2011

Posted by Jim Peterman in history of honor, honor system, philosophy of honor, Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to Honor Ethics. By way of brief introduction, I have published only one article on honor, in the local Sewanee alumni magazine, but I have taught a course, “Ethics of Honor” for years. That class has become for me a philosophical “laboratory” for thinking about this under-discussed notion. I welcome the chance to explore the ethics of honor with those who have had more to write about this than I have.

One section of my class on honor has students read editorials and articles on the 1906 founding of Sewanee’s Honor System.  From then until now, Sewanee has had a student-run honor code.  It has changed over time. What one at first an informal code, based on agreement of the small student body of around 200 students about what it means to be a gentleman, has become increasingly formal, with no more reference to the grounding ideal of being a gentleman, but with an increasing focus on the intricacies of due process governing honor trials. Since 1906 faculty have the sole responsibility of reporting possible infractions to the Honor Council. Even today, only the student Honor Council can determine that an honor violation has taken place.

When I examine in the school newspaper, The Sewanee Purple, early articles and editorials  on the newly formed Honor System, I see a world that no longer exists at Sewanee, despite our perpetuation of the Honor system.

Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...

The “Honor System” discussed on Tonight Show

07 Friday Oct 2011

Posted by dan demetriou in honor in contempory media, honor system, philosophy of honor

≈ 2 Comments

Last night’s Tonight Show featured an entertaining discussion of competitive bird watching’s “honor system.” [start watching at 24:40…]

[http://www.hulu.com/watch/286743/the-tonight-show-with-jay-leno-thu-oct-6-2011#s-p1-so-i0]

In general, it seems an appeal to the “honor system” is appropriate just when

  • participants can unfairly profit from an arrangement
  • with impunity
  • because there is no oversight.

As I see it, an honor theorist must address at least these three puzzles the “honor system” raises: Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Recent events:

Kansas State mini-conference: "Perspectives on Modern Honor"

Book series: Honor and Obligation in Liberal Society

Honor and Ethics Mini-Conference

Contributors

  • Andrea Mansker
  • Craig Bruce Smith
  • Dan Demetriou (administrator)
  • Graham Oddie
  • Jim Peterman
  • Joe Thomas
  • Lad Sessions
  • Laurie M. Johnson
  • Mark Collier
  • Mark Griffith
  • Paul Robinson
  • Peter Olsthoorn
  • Robert Oprisko
  • Ryan Rhodes
  • Shannon French
  • Sharon Krause
  • Steven Skultety
  • Tamler Sommers
  • Tony Cunningham
  • Valerie Soon

Recent posts

  • Two new books on honor by contributors Tamler Sommers and Craig Bruce Smith
  • Jordan Peterson on the play/honor (agonism) ethic
  • Honor and the Military Photo Scandal
  • HonorShame.com write-up of Honor in the Modern World
  • “Ethics for Adversaries” blog

Contributors’ Books

Johnson and Demetriou's Honor in the Modern World

Peter Olsthoorn's Honor in Political and Moral Philosophy

Joe Thomas' Leadership, Ethics and Law of War Discussion Guide for Marines

Anthony Cunningham's Modern Honor

Laurie Johnson's Locke and Rousseau: Two Enlightenment Responses to Honor

Peter Olsthoorn's Military Ethics and Virtues: An Interdisciplinary Approach for the 21st Century

Tamler Sommers' A Very Bad Wizard

Lad Sessions' Honor For Us

Andrea Mansker's Sex, Honor and Citizenship in Early Third Republic France

Laurie Johnson's Thomas Hobbes: Turning Point for Honor

Shannon French's The Code of the Warrior

Sharon Krause's Liberalism With Honor

Robert Oprisko's Honor: A Phenomenology

Graham Oddie's Value, Reality, Desire

Paul Robinson's Military Honour and the Conduct of War

Jim Peterman's Philosophy as Therapy

Archives

  • October 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • May 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • August 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • January 2012
  • November 2011
  • October 2011

Social

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Follow Following
    • Honor Ethics
    • Join 110 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Honor Ethics
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...
 

    %d bloggers like this: