What Should Realists Say About Honor Cultures?

Dan Demetriou

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    8 Scopus citations


    Richard Nisbett and Dov Cohen’s (1996) influential account of “cultures of honor” speculates that honor norms are a socially-adaptive deterrence strategy. This theory has been appealed to by multiple empirically-minded philosophers, and plays an important role in John Doris and Alexandra Plakias’ (2008) antirealist argument from disagreement. In this essay, I raise four objections to the Nisbett-Cohen deterrence thesis, and offer another theory of honor in its place that sees honor as an agonistic normative system regulating prestige competitions. Since my account portrays honor norms as radically different from liberal ones, it actually strengthens Doris and Plakias’ case in some respects: cultures of honor are not merely superficially different from Western liberal ones. Nonetheless, the persistent appeal of honor’s principles, and their moral plausibility in certain contexts, suggests not antirealism, but pluralism—a reply on behalf of realism that itself has considerable empirical support.

    Original languageEnglish (US)
    Pages (from-to)893-911
    Number of pages19
    JournalEthical Theory and Moral Practice
    Issue number5
    StatePublished - Nov 1 2014

    Bibliographical note

    Publisher Copyright:
    © 2014, Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.


    • Cultural psychology
    • Honor cultures
    • Metaethical realism
    • Moral disagreement
    • Pluralism
    • Social psychology


    Dive into the research topics of 'What Should Realists Say About Honor Cultures?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this