I was reading the US Manual of the Law of War by the Department of Defense. It is based off Prussian legal theory. I’m having trouble finding the definition, b

I was reading the US Manual of the Law of War by the Department of Defense. It is based off Prussian legal theory. I’m having trouble finding the definition, but the only available online PDF is a new version. The new version talks about honor, but never defines it. As it’s generally used, the phrase “honor” is transnational. A soldier who does a good job, in the eyes of both friend and foe, has honor. So in their German context, there is debate over which solders in WWII were honorable. Certainly not those involved in the holocaust, but probably most of those who served on U-Boats. The honor should be recognized by American soldiers as well. But you see how this becomes circular. To steal from Euthyphro, is something honorable because it is honored, or is it honored because it is honorable? In practice, it limits what harm can be inflicted, and requires assuming enemy soldiers are good and decent humans until proven otherwise. The definition I found disturbing treated honor like it was a presumption of technical competency for foreign soldiers. This sounds pretty different from what you’re describing, which seems more similar to the English word “conscience.”