Defining Integrity: Is Integrity always good and virtuous?
Flickr: andy.wolf
In our quest to constantly be defining integrity we must dive into ethics and morality and they relate to integrity, which leads to the question “Is integrity always good and virtuous?” I think we all would agree that the accepted cultural meaning of integrity is good and virtuous, but we must go a bit deeper. Let’s take look at the Merriam Webster definition, “a strict adherence to an especially moral or artistic code of values.†I suppose this paints integrity with virtue, but that definition doesn’t really answer the question, it just passes the buck onto a debate on morality. If one wishes to create a framework for an easier logic to define and measure integrity the answer is in the act of discernment by the subject and universal morality. For our purposes here I wont go into discernment, but you can read more about it and how it relates to integrity here, “Discernment a Core Component of Personal Integrity”.
In any philosophical discussion about the meaning of integrity and its rank among the highest virtues a man can aspire to, a debate is surely to unfold over the preposition “does integrity mean moral and good?â€Â According to the defintion above a person would have integrity by simply living his/her values if they deem them to be moral, even if soceity doesnt. This is where an element of ethics enters into the equation, however this is difficult because the current definition says nothing of ethics. Because integrity is subjective to a large degree, there must be room for a person to use their own judgement when accessing the absolute right or wrong of a situationa as it relates to their values. Take a suicide bomber for example. I’m sure they would argue that their actions are moral, just, and in direct accordance to their values. My personal opinions aside, this is a good example for the student of integrity.  One could then argue that they are an ultimate example of integrity, because they are willing to die for what they believe in, even at great cost, the highest cost, which is a trademark of integrity, the willingess to risk loss. Of course this is assuming they truly believe in their cause and are not brainwashed. However, the idea of a terrorist possessing a very high degree of integrity is preposterous and the linear logic here is missing something. What is missing is both the discernment one must go through to think for themselves and discover the truth, and an agreed upon set of morals that are good. A set of morals that any rational man would deem good and just, which in philosophy is called a universal morality. This universal morality (UM) is the filter which integrity must pass through. Meaning that a man can choose his values and is considered a man of integrity (integrious) should he become and live by them, if and only if those values pass through the filter of universal morality. I believe the universal morality idea also slightly presupposes the idea that all men are born and are at their core, good.  Of course there certainly are exceptions, but we are talking theoretically and not perfect reality.
The wonderful thing about the concept of universal morality is what it does to the meaning and definition of integrity. It cleans it up. One of the major problems with the current definition and its misunderstanding in current society is the separation that begins when morality factor in. Morality is a tough because we all come from different backgrounds and have different beliefs of what is right and wrong. So the meaning of integrity and its value as a virtue gets muddied in the waters of morality. A universal morality removes this element from the definition of integrity, and we can now operate this discussion from a new perspective: “integrity: a strict adherence to a set of values.†This is pretty straight forward and simple, but profound in its impact. The values can be anything, and integrity as applied to these values is considered good and is a virtue. This is has a massive correlation when you realize that this also removes subjective judgment from the equation. Let me give you an example: Let’s say I have a friend who walks to a different beat of life than I do. He makes choices, and lives in a way that I cannot understand. It would be easy for me to pass judgment on him in a negative sense because his beliefs and values are different. However, if his actions and beliefs pass through the simple filter of universal morality, then I could objectively determine if he was a man of integrity and as such would appreciate and respect him even though we are so incredibly different.  **Note I am a big believer in non-judgment, and my work is not created to allow people a more precise way to judge others, but to evaluate oneself.
Of course by now you must be thinking and wondering “what is the universal morality (UM)� The assertions above only work and are built on the assumption that it is truth and more importantly that we can agree and believe it. I have taken the liberty to ponder this and have come up with what I believe to be the universal morality from which we can pass the virtue of integrity through. I must say first, however, that I take this quite seriously and have applied many mental and philosophical tests to this UM and am confident it can hold its ground in any debate.
- Life.
- Truth.
- Freedom.
To briefly explain and expand on the above: life also means health and not damaging the health of nature and fellow man. Truth means first being honest with yourself and then extending it to your external reality. Freedom is both to live and to choose, as in man has the right to choose how to live his life etc (of course his choices must not breach the UM). If an act or principle conflicts with the above, it wont pass through the filter, and therefore would not equate to integrity.
12 Comments
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
- Integrity Defined: The Freedom To Choose Your Own Values - The Integrious Project | The Integrious Project - [...] and Integrity: It must be said that in defining integrity the values must have a moral focus or premise. This can ...
Leave a Comment
Subscribe
Follow Us
Let’s simplify things a little bit here. If integrity is the highest virtue a man can aspire, we have to define VIRTUE to answer the question: “Is integrity always good and virtuous?”
Virtue is “moral excellence…a COMMENDABLE quality or trait.” The universal Golden Rule as I heard it once said, “Do unto others as you would have them do to you (worded differently from different religions, but means the same thing) IS commendable. If a suicide bommer’s attempt to invoke fatality to himself and other’s in the process (including his wife and children as well as innocent bystanders), I do not think anyone in their right mind would deem this act commendable. It may be noble in HIS mind to die for His cause, but certainly not commendable nor integrious for the love of mankind in my opinion. This person is just seeking an aristocratic rank to which he would conclude vanity and great disappointment in the end. Sorry, the definition is not muddy, but pretty clear, unless one is deceived or just plain confused.
This is really fascinating. I think there’s a fine line between one’s perceived integrity and one’s actual integrity. From a completely unbiased standpoint, that line is (in part) the zealotry possessed by individuals who commit terrorist acts. Zeal is certain, closed to opinion, antipathetic to any system or standards but what matches theirs. The discernment and the love for self and others (only love for ideal remain) is completely vanquished.
But this trait isn’t exclusive to terrorists, as anyone knows. That’s why we need integrity in the world now more than ever.
Absolutely Juaqin, you’re right. Thank you for your comment. The important consideration here, and that of integrity is to be open minded and realize there are always so many considerations. An important subject that you bring up is the facet of integrity that involves not a judgemental bias, but a natural inclination to search for and find the truth. Without the full truth there can be no conculusion or judgment passed.
I hope to see more of your insight on this website/posts.
Beau
The comment about the civilian taking a life that didn’t have any value was interesting. If one did some exploration, maybe they would find out that the bomber’s family was being held hostage, or in fact maybe he/she was brain washed. And perhaps if the person was able to be talked down, maybe they could have benefited society in some manner. There can be so many variables, and what we have to keep in mind is that sometimes our Westen benevolence plays a part in our UM.
Katin,
Thanks for the comment! I am def. aware and slightly familiar with the integral work. I have been a member on the site for about 1 year now and although I havent been able to read any of Ken’s books yet I certainly plan to spend some time there. My sense is that it is a great community and I hope to collaborate with them at some point. They seem to be incredibly advanced in their work and I am aiming to bring these “integrity” messages to people on a more basic level. I do hope to interact and communicate more with you in the future. I took a quick look at your blog and will try to follow along. Any interest in writing a piece or two for us, either on your personal reflections with integrity or maybe a content driven article on understanding an element of integrity?
Beau
I love the spirit of exploration, definition and expansion in your project, and all applied to the greater task of clarifying and improving society and the world.
Really great.
At some point on your journey, the work of modern philosopher Ken Wilber might be of interest to you. His book, “A Brief History of Everything” is a great place to start, although his older book, “Boomeritis” might be more relevant to directly engaging modern social values of various groups to an examination of perspectives of integrity (an esp. relevant concept to research would be “the pre/post fallacy”).
Interestingly enough, Ken’s work is called “Integral Theory” – a philosophy about integrating all belief systems, philosophical systems, known stages of society and development (which is a definition that hardly does justice to the work, but it is what I’ll write here.)
“Being Integral” is about understanding and living in integrity – to yourself, most of all, but also understanding other people’s “versions” of integrity, values and morals. Seeking the why behind it all and searching for the commonality, from biology to social imperatives to ideas and memes. It must be there somewhere, eh?
Know, too, that Ken Wilber’s work has gone through several stages of refinement and development over these last thirty years, and the latest deep stuff can sometimes rely on understanding the previous work. So it may be best to start with his earlier writings (like “Brief History”) and work up from there. I think you’ll find it quite relevant to your work here.
Most of all, keep writing, keep searching and keep reaching to clarify, understand and improve! That spirit is indeed the key to a better future.
Interesting ideas here. Especially the suicide bomber perspective. Not everything is only defined by our western cultural influence.
Hello, i´m beginning with rss subscriptions. Now i can stay current with your site and especially the topic Integrity definition, defining integrity, integrity as a virtue | Integrious: The Adjective of Integrity now, really a neat feature. Thanks, Zahnimplantat
Mamie and Mariel, Thank You! I am working on new blog posts that I think you will like. I look forward to seeing your future comments!
BH
Learned your internet site via yahoo the other day and absolutely find it irresistible. Keep up the truly amazing work.
Rj,
Very well written and articulated comment, thank you. You bring up some interesting ideas and I hope we can continue to define and test the UM to strengthen its grasp on the truth. However, I don’t feel your examples are very relevant and here’s why: They dont apply to real world situations. The civilian who acts would still be integrious (all other things constant) because he saved more lives then he took, and of course the fact that the bomber was going to take his own life anyway, means the civilian didn’t really take a life that had any value. With regards to UM the life moral doesnt mean it is immoral to take a life, although 99% of the time it probably would. This is where the big picture comes into play. There will be some examples of course where it is very hard to make a determination, and in that case a person may act in the right but not be integrious and vice versa. This is not an absolute, nor is it possible to have one. But I believe this UM , and especially with more defining and explaining, can be a filter for which a very high % of all situations can easily be measured and then passed through to the tests of integrity.
This article suggests that universal morality (UM) is “a set of morals that any rational man would deem good and just†and defines UM in terms of life, truth, and freedom. Accordingly, these concepts must be the agreed upon set of morals that the Author proposes we accept. Fair enough. As members of society, then, it is incumbent on us to test the proposed “filter†should we deem integrity a worthy objective.
Any test of the UM begins with the subjective set of values unique to the individual. The Author asserts that these values can be anything. But in order to attain integrity, or be integrious, the adherence to these values must not violate the UM. In the Author’s words, “If an act or principle conflicts with [the UM], it won’t pass through the filter, and therefore would not equate with integrity.â€
At a glance it seems plausible that anyone could be integrious with a little conscious effort. Take the UM principle – life, which the author expands to encompass health and not damaging the health of nature or others. I think rational people would agree that killing another is wrong and not integrious, and would avoid an act that causes death to another. Life, however, rarely affords us the privilege of making such one-dimensional choices. If an individual strives to be more integrious, how should the individual react when faced with an “integrious†conflict?
Examine the following scenario and whether you think the actor is making an integrious decision:
A man, strapped with a nuclear bomb that is designed to destroy everything within a 1,000 mile radius, walks into a major city with the intent to detonate the bomb. Seconds before the bomb is detonated, a civilian who understands the gravity of the situation pulls out a gun and kills the man. The civilian saved millions of lives but breached the UM.
Most would agree that the civilian is a hero. The actions of the civilian, however, violated the UM and, thus, the civilian’s actions would not equate to integrity. If integrity is an all or nothing concept, the civilian would not be integrious. Since no one is perfect and one decision does not define a person, then it seems to me that integrity is a scaled concept ranging from no integrity to consummate integrity. So how would this scale apply to the civilian? Is the civilian less integrious because he violated the UM, even though he saved millions of lives? I hope not.
We are all faced with tough decisions that often result in a clash of values. In the example above the civilian was forced to choose between protecting life and destroying it. If, on the one hand, allowing the bomb to detonate makes the civilian more integrious then it seems to me there’s a problem. On the other, if we accept that one can be more integrious while breaching the UM, then we engage in an inexorable battle to set boundaries in an elusive balancing of morals. This detracts from the very purpose of the UM.
There are countless examples where UM principles will conflict or where a minor violation of a UM principle might be justified and desirable, such as damaging the health of nature to provide food and shelter for one’s family. The mere notion that UM violations can be qualified in terms of degree opens the door to a host of issues that warrant closer examination.
Nevertheless, the existence of a UM is necessary to avoid moral relativism and it is not my intent to advocate against the use or acceptance of a UM. It is only through meticulous examination that we can better strengthen the proposed UM and develop a comprehensive filter against which we can define and measure integrity.