Kevin's Watch

Before I leave for vacay, let me start a thread, and I can come back in a couple weeks and see if its a dud or not.

What is Integrity?

It's the hardest thing that I've ever tried to define.

I think that simple honesty isn't the whole thing.

The best definition I ever ran across went something like this: integrity is playing by the rules even when no one else does. For example, the public official who spends time helping a single poor constituent, instead of focusing only on the influential ones, might be said to have integrity. Or the movie star who waits in line for a table, like everyone else, rather than dropping a name.

Any other ideas?

Trouble is, it's an abnegation of self in favor of an idea - an ideal, even. You need to actually believe in something, that something is right and other things wrong, in order to take a stand like that.

I tend to approach any definition of it more in the "doing what you say you're going to do" light.

I see that the dictionary defines it (in this context) as: "Steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code..."

--A

rusmeister wrote:Trouble is, it's an abnegation of self in favor of an idea - an ideal, even. You need to actually believe in something, that something is right and other things wrong, in order to take a stand like that.

Can one have self integrity? Do you have to give up yourself to believe in something? For instance, I do not believe in punching people. I do not put myself behind this idea, because if I were being attacked, I would break it. In restraining myself at work, could I be described as having integrity? Or not, because I am willing to break it?

Balon wrote:

rusmeister wrote:Trouble is, it's an abnegation of self in favor of an idea - an ideal, even. You need to actually believe in something, that something is right and other things wrong, in order to take a stand like that.

Can one have self integrity? Do you have to give up yourself to believe in something? For instance, I do not believe in punching people. I do not put myself behind this idea, because if I were being attacked, I would break it. In restraining myself at work, could I be described as having integrity? Or not, because I am willing to break it?

I think Avatar's dictionary definition covered it:

"Steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code..."

The question is, what is the nature of the moral code that tells you not to punch people?
As CS Lewis said,
1) we have this odd feeling that we ought to behave a certain way that we can't seem to shake off, and
2) we do not, in fact, behave that way.

Or the movie star who waits in line for a table, like everyone else, rather than dropping a name.

I don't think it shows integrity to pretend you're not rich and famous when you are in fact rich and famous. If I were R&F, I'd take advantage of every perk of that status and not feel one shred of guilt, especially when we're talking about waiting in line to engage in a luxury activity (having other human beings wait on you and feed you). It's a rather empty and shallow way to illustrate your integrity. Not to turn this into a political debate, but the example that immediately jumps to my mind is John McCain refusing to go home before the other POWs due to the status and power of his father. That's integrity.

Nor do I think it shows integrity to play by the rules when no one else is. To behave in such a manner would be extremely foolish. There is nothing sacred about rules. They only exist to make things fair. If things aren't fair, then there is no longer any point to holding to this agreement, because the agreement has been broken. That would be like remaining faithful to a spouse who is cheating on you. It's not integrity, it's letting yourself be used.

And public officials aren't elected to help a single poor constituent. Rich people vote, too. Besides, the role of the government isn't to help people. Governance isn't the same as helping. I don't elect these people to hold tax paying jobs just so they can help one single poor constituent. For my elected official to behave in this manner would be a breach of the trust I put in him with my vote, and a wild abuse of his tax paid job. Under no circumstances could I see this as "integrity."

It is amazing to me how things that we take for granted in our beliefs can be so diametrically opposed to the things others take for granted. You'd think we could agree on such a basic concept.

Hahaha no chance.

The problem with that dictionary definition, (or the beauty of it, I haven't decided), is that it treats all moral or ethical codes as equal.

The Jihadist who kills the infidel has just as much integrity as the man who allows his children to starve becuase it's wrong to steal.

Anyway, good point about rules Malik. Although I don't think that there's anything good about using your position to receive preferential treatment.

And Balon...of course believing in yourself is equally as valid as believing in anything external.

--A

Avatar, I wasn't trying to say that a politician should use his position to give special treatment to a select few (or a select one) . . . that was Wayfriend's position.

Oh, you're talking about the restaurant. Hmm . . . would you feel the same if the restaurant owner was your friend? There's nothing wrong with preferential treatment. We all do it with our friends and family. Extending it to celebrities might be seen as progress. The circle widening . . .

But how do you feel if you've been waiting for a table and the owners friend walks in and gets seated immediately and ahead of you?

(And that wasn't Wayfriends position. Not intentionally anyway.)

--A

I think integrity is essentially unfailingly sticking to what you believe, if in your view it is the right thing - even if it's the wrong thing in the eyes of others

To quote the great Lord John Whorfin, "Character is what you are in the dark".

Integrity is maintaining character no matter what.

Malik wrote:There's nothing wrong with preferential treatment. We all do it with our friends and family. Extending it to celebrities might be seen as progress. The circle widening . . .

So why does it show integrity that McCain refuses it?

Integrity derives from the latin word for whole or complete integer. So ethymologically speaking I'd say that having integrity means not breaking the whole that is you, no matter what defines that whole, be that yourself or a set of religious or worldly dogma. Your whole should be redefined rather than broken.

Prebe wrote:

Malik wrote:There's nothing wrong with preferential treatment. We all do it with our friends and family. Extending it to celebrities might be seen as progress. The circle widening . . .

So why does it show integrity that McCain refuses it?

Well, that's a good question. I think the difference is: refusing a to jump ahead in line for a luxury--something you choose to engage in--as opposed to jumping ahead in line to escape something that is done to you against your will. No one forces you to go to a restaurant. If you seek out this luxury activity, you are already subjecting yourself to the context of social and financial judgment. For instance, when I waited tables, you bet your ass I gave preferential treatment to those patrons who were more likely to make my wallet fat . . . or who were simply more fun to wait on. If you were a jerk, or if you were cheap, you got waited on last. It's a business. If you don't like the way you are treated, you don't have to go back. However, the same can't be said of a POW camp. It's not a free market bargain.

Another way to say it: I think complaining about the way luxuries are divided up is petty (not saying anyone is doing that here). It might be nice for people to share them "fairly." But it's such a small sacrifice, that I can't elevate this niceness to the level of integrity. What you do when times are good is pretty meaningless compared to what you do when life, death, and torture is on the line.

Prebe wrote:

Malik wrote:There's nothing wrong with preferential treatment. We all do it with our friends and family. Extending it to celebrities might be seen as progress. The circle widening . . .

So why does it show integrity that McCain refuses it?

Integrity derives from the latin word for whole or complete integer. So ethymologically speaking I'd say that having integrity means not breaking the whole that is you, no matter what defines that whole, be that yourself or a set of religious or worldly dogma. Your whole should be redefined rather than broken.

On that last statement, Prebe, it seems that you are suggesting that the shape of you (in the moral, not physical sense) should become amorphous in the face of conflict. Changing the definition IS breaking that wholeness. If there is an ideal, then the whole point is to keep to that ideal, not change it. (or perhaps I misunderstood what you wanted to say?)

Malik23 wrote: What you do when times are good is pretty meaningless compared to what you do when life, death, and torture is on the line.

This deserves triple reps!!!

Russ wrote:On that last statement, Prebe, it seems that you are suggesting that the shape of you (in the moral, not physical sense) should become amorphous in the face of conflict. Changing the definition IS breaking that wholeness. If there is an ideal, then the whole point is to keep to that ideal, not change it. (or perhaps I misunderstood what you wanted to say?)

Faced with convincing arguments I change my ideals. If integrity is stuborn adherence to dogma (of any kind) I have none. Or integrity is a buzz-word with no real meaning.

rusmeister wrote: I think Avatar's dictionary definition covered it:

"Steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code..."

That makes sense. I would then just be violating my own integrity if I punched someone.

rusmeister wrote:The question is, what is the nature of the moral code that tells you not to punch people?
As CS Lewis said,
1) we have this odd feeling that we ought to behave a certain way that we can't seem to shake off, and
2) we do not, in fact, behave that way.

well this is where it gets tricky. Because I have different integrity on different subjects.
I do not want to harm someone further than I have to to survive myself.
But I also believe in self defense.
In punching another person I break my integrity to never punch someone, yet hold to my integrity to keep myself safe.

Is it considered a break, if I break it on behalf of another set of integrity?

Prebe wrote:

Rusmeister wrote:On that last statement, Prebe, it seems that you are suggesting that the shape of you (in the moral, not physical sense) should become amorphous in the face of conflict. Changing the definition IS breaking that wholeness. If there is an ideal, then the whole point is to keep to that ideal, not change it. (or perhaps I misunderstood what you wanted to say?)

Faced with convincing arguments I change my ideals. If integrity is stuborn adherence to dogma (of any kind) I have none. Or integrity is a buzz-word with no real meaning.

Thanks. I think that explains what you were saying.
But then you believe that you may hold wrong ideals - or that it is not possible to come to a conclusion and be sure of your conclusion?
If you hold that it is not possible, then clearly that is a dogma of yours. I assert that everyone has dogmas - a true agnostic holds that it is not possible to know truth, A proper atheist asserts that God does not exist. These are just as dogmatic as the Christian assertion that Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God. Once you are clear on what your dogmas are, then we can fight.

You think that it is a dogma never to refuse changing my ethos/belief? I suppose the word "never" makes it a dogma, but considering the alternatives, I'm running with that.

Calling it a dogma is blatant sophistry, but whatever floats your boat

Prebe wrote:

Russ wrote:On that last statement, Prebe, it seems that you are suggesting that the shape of you (in the moral, not physical sense) should become amorphous in the face of conflict. Changing the definition IS breaking that wholeness. If there is an ideal, then the whole point is to keep to that ideal, not change it. (or perhaps I misunderstood what you wanted to say?)

Faced with convincing arguments I change my ideals. If integrity is stuborn adherence to dogma (of any kind) I have none. Or integrity is a buzz-word with no real meaning.

Then you have none.

Integrity is maintaining your beliefs, no matter how convenient it would be to bend them.

It has nothing to do with beliefs changing for other reasons.