ETHICS PART 6: THE VIRTUE OF INTEGRITY
|
"In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock."
-Thomas Jefferson |
|
INTEGRITY
The previous virtue, independence, dealt mostly with the mind. Having the strength and confidence in your own mind to achieve independence. Integrity focuses on actions, it deals with the body. Since we are an integrated unit of mind and body, both must work in unison to function properly. It does no good to think if you never act on your thoughts. Conversely, actions would be ethically meaningless if there was no thought behind them. While the virtue of independence is crucial in order to determine what our principles are, integrity is just as crucial to carry out those principles. Integrity is loyalty in action to one's convictions and values. In other words, it's practicing what you preach, or not being a hypocrite. It's the virtue of acting on principle. Or, the principle of being principled!
The previous virtue, independence, dealt mostly with the mind. Having the strength and confidence in your own mind to achieve independence. Integrity focuses on actions, it deals with the body. Since we are an integrated unit of mind and body, both must work in unison to function properly. It does no good to think if you never act on your thoughts. Conversely, actions would be ethically meaningless if there was no thought behind them. While the virtue of independence is crucial in order to determine what our principles are, integrity is just as crucial to carry out those principles. Integrity is loyalty in action to one's convictions and values. In other words, it's practicing what you preach, or not being a hypocrite. It's the virtue of acting on principle. Or, the principle of being principled!
Don't be a hypocrite!
Before you can have integrity, you must have convictions and principles, otherwise there would be nothing to be loyal to. In this sense, a baby or small child couldn't be said to have integrity, because they haven't formed the concepts required for it. Principles must be learned, and formed rationally for one to be confident that they are for one's life and not against it. Principles should never be derived from emotions, whims, or social pressures (this would go against the virtue of independence in the last post). Once a principle has been carefully identified and established by an independent mind using reason, integrity is the virtue that follows it in action. Integrity to arbitrary notions, or to feelings or whims one might have is not a virtue. Being willing to die for the Fuhrer or become a good Klan member would be both irrational and immoral, as the principles behind them are irrational and immoral. The virtue of integrity ultimately rests upon one's proper choice of principles.
To have integrity means to realize that you cannot fake or lie to your own consciousness. If you've decided that you value something, then act accordingly. For example, if you claim to love someone, then you have identified that person as an extraordinary value to you and you should act to keep that value, potentially at extraordinary costs. Assuming you've properly made the decision that you love someone, if your actions are indifferent, hurtful, or damaging to that person then you have failed to have integrity and are acting immorally. Cheating on your wife, for instance, would be a failure to act according to what you value. It's fairly obvious that cheating is not the route to achieve happiness or self-esteem, and is therefore ultimately a profoundly irrational act. Even if you don't get caught, your consciousness has caught you, and that's inescapable.
To have integrity means to realize that you cannot fake or lie to your own consciousness. If you've decided that you value something, then act accordingly. For example, if you claim to love someone, then you have identified that person as an extraordinary value to you and you should act to keep that value, potentially at extraordinary costs. Assuming you've properly made the decision that you love someone, if your actions are indifferent, hurtful, or damaging to that person then you have failed to have integrity and are acting immorally. Cheating on your wife, for instance, would be a failure to act according to what you value. It's fairly obvious that cheating is not the route to achieve happiness or self-esteem, and is therefore ultimately a profoundly irrational act. Even if you don't get caught, your consciousness has caught you, and that's inescapable.
Of course, it's often preferable to get caught by only your consciousness!
Poison cake, anyone?
"SELFISHNESS"
The popular use of the term "selfish" refers to acting on fleeting emotions and desires that are typically aimed at achieving short-term pleasure. Cheating, lying, doing drugs, acting without considering your neighbor's or friend's feelings, etc. Bizarrely, these are considered actions where one "only thinks of themselves", and is therefore selfish. Perhaps, but only according to a shallow and irrational philosophy! A rational view of ethics would hold these sort of actions as harmful to one's long-term happiness and self-esteem, and thus irrational and selfless. Acting selfishly should be a virtue, but only if one views ethics through the proper prism, and identifies what acting in one's self-interest entails. Any time spent in critical thought will make it clear that acting to achieve momentary pleasure is not usually a good plan for happiness. The popular understanding of the term "selfish" can be traced back to ancient Greek philosophy, where two opposing views of ethics battled out. Aristotle put forth a more rational view (similar to this site), where virtue consisted of acting to achieve happiness, while the Sophists held the view that there were no objective ethical standards, so people should just act on their desires and momentary whims. The latter unfortunately ended up dominating Western Civilization's view of "selfish" meaning an immoral, antisocial act. It's okay to use the term in popular culture, but we should always realize that "selfish" acts are generally irrational and contrary to one's long-term self-interest.
It's perfectly natural, no matter how rational the person, to experience desires, whims, or fears that will tempt you to act against your principles and value-judgements. Having these feelings in itself is not immoral, only if you act upon them. Being tempted to cheat on your wife isn't immoral, only when you seriously allow that feeling to take hold into your mind and/or act on it. Being rational doesn't mean you are immune from whims and passing desires, it just means you consider them before acting on them, as you must use reason to determine if a whim is worthwhile to pursue or not. It's also possible that society or other people will try to convince you to abandon your principles and follow them, or even demand that you follow their ideas. No matter which obstacle may be in the way, unbreached integrity means that you trust and follow your own mind, never giving way to temptations, feelings, or outside pressures. This doesn't mean that you should be stubborn and not consider others' opinions; to the contrary. It's not a breach of integrity to change your views if you discover that they are wrong (through reason, of course). In fact, it's a moral obligation! However, when you decide that you do know something, stand by it unwaveringly.
Having integrity has historically been exceedingly difficult, as integrity was based upon largely irrational principles and ideas (and still is). If the ethical viewpoint is that man is a sinful being, and having integrity means to go against our human nature and live like an ascetic, then life will become a constant struggle against immoral passions (and a losing battle that will necessitate faith in something "greater" than yourself). Choosing principles that preach self-sacrifice, or that deny pleasure, will make it impossible to attain full integrity, as your body will naturally struggle against it. However, if the viewpoint is that integrity is a means of self preservation, a means of furthering one's life, it then becomes achievable. If you are able to focus and see life clearly, and see that having integrity will improve your life, then it becomes rational to have integrity. Imagine seeing a delicious looking cake, but someone tells you that they put arsenic in it. Would you still desire it? Of course not; it would be crystal clear to you that it was against your life and the temptation to eat the cake would vanish. Similarly, cheating on your wife should have the same, crystal clear implication of the poison cake. It's against your happiness, self-esteem and life. A quick, rational examination, would make it clear that cheating is against your life, and the temptation will vanish (assuming you actually love your wife). Over time, it will get easier to deal with these temptations as it gets integrated into your mind.
The popular use of the term "selfish" refers to acting on fleeting emotions and desires that are typically aimed at achieving short-term pleasure. Cheating, lying, doing drugs, acting without considering your neighbor's or friend's feelings, etc. Bizarrely, these are considered actions where one "only thinks of themselves", and is therefore selfish. Perhaps, but only according to a shallow and irrational philosophy! A rational view of ethics would hold these sort of actions as harmful to one's long-term happiness and self-esteem, and thus irrational and selfless. Acting selfishly should be a virtue, but only if one views ethics through the proper prism, and identifies what acting in one's self-interest entails. Any time spent in critical thought will make it clear that acting to achieve momentary pleasure is not usually a good plan for happiness. The popular understanding of the term "selfish" can be traced back to ancient Greek philosophy, where two opposing views of ethics battled out. Aristotle put forth a more rational view (similar to this site), where virtue consisted of acting to achieve happiness, while the Sophists held the view that there were no objective ethical standards, so people should just act on their desires and momentary whims. The latter unfortunately ended up dominating Western Civilization's view of "selfish" meaning an immoral, antisocial act. It's okay to use the term in popular culture, but we should always realize that "selfish" acts are generally irrational and contrary to one's long-term self-interest.
It's perfectly natural, no matter how rational the person, to experience desires, whims, or fears that will tempt you to act against your principles and value-judgements. Having these feelings in itself is not immoral, only if you act upon them. Being tempted to cheat on your wife isn't immoral, only when you seriously allow that feeling to take hold into your mind and/or act on it. Being rational doesn't mean you are immune from whims and passing desires, it just means you consider them before acting on them, as you must use reason to determine if a whim is worthwhile to pursue or not. It's also possible that society or other people will try to convince you to abandon your principles and follow them, or even demand that you follow their ideas. No matter which obstacle may be in the way, unbreached integrity means that you trust and follow your own mind, never giving way to temptations, feelings, or outside pressures. This doesn't mean that you should be stubborn and not consider others' opinions; to the contrary. It's not a breach of integrity to change your views if you discover that they are wrong (through reason, of course). In fact, it's a moral obligation! However, when you decide that you do know something, stand by it unwaveringly.
Having integrity has historically been exceedingly difficult, as integrity was based upon largely irrational principles and ideas (and still is). If the ethical viewpoint is that man is a sinful being, and having integrity means to go against our human nature and live like an ascetic, then life will become a constant struggle against immoral passions (and a losing battle that will necessitate faith in something "greater" than yourself). Choosing principles that preach self-sacrifice, or that deny pleasure, will make it impossible to attain full integrity, as your body will naturally struggle against it. However, if the viewpoint is that integrity is a means of self preservation, a means of furthering one's life, it then becomes achievable. If you are able to focus and see life clearly, and see that having integrity will improve your life, then it becomes rational to have integrity. Imagine seeing a delicious looking cake, but someone tells you that they put arsenic in it. Would you still desire it? Of course not; it would be crystal clear to you that it was against your life and the temptation to eat the cake would vanish. Similarly, cheating on your wife should have the same, crystal clear implication of the poison cake. It's against your happiness, self-esteem and life. A quick, rational examination, would make it clear that cheating is against your life, and the temptation will vanish (assuming you actually love your wife). Over time, it will get easier to deal with these temptations as it gets integrated into your mind.
Even Dr. Evil isn't 100% evil.
BEING GOOD vs EVIL
To have integrity and be good means to be good all the time. To be evil even just part of the time is to be evil (although there are certainly degrees of evil). No one is evil all the time; to practice evil consistently would mean the immediate destruction of your life. Even Hitler practiced certain virtues some (or even most) of the time. The fact is that evil doesn't want to be consistent. If a man decides to kill only .1% of the people he meets, he's a killer. No one kills 100% of the people they meet. If a man lies .1% of the time he is a liar. No one could lie 100% of the time. If a man steals from .1% of the stores he sees, he is a thief, and so on. The fact of reality is that evil needs the good to exist, as the good is what furthers life. Since evil destroys life, a world of pure evil could have no human life in it. Evil can only be a parasite on the good. The good (which is the rational) has nothing to gain from the evil (the irrational) except misery and despair. On the other hand, evil has everything to gain from the good. A store doesn't need a thief, but a thief needs a store and what's been produced by others. A free, prosperous nation doesn't need help from a corrupt dictatorship, but the dictatorship will want help and goods from the prosperous nations. Evil wants to destroy, but it first must have something to destroy.
To have integrity and be good means to be good all the time. To be evil even just part of the time is to be evil (although there are certainly degrees of evil). No one is evil all the time; to practice evil consistently would mean the immediate destruction of your life. Even Hitler practiced certain virtues some (or even most) of the time. The fact is that evil doesn't want to be consistent. If a man decides to kill only .1% of the people he meets, he's a killer. No one kills 100% of the people they meet. If a man lies .1% of the time he is a liar. No one could lie 100% of the time. If a man steals from .1% of the stores he sees, he is a thief, and so on. The fact of reality is that evil needs the good to exist, as the good is what furthers life. Since evil destroys life, a world of pure evil could have no human life in it. Evil can only be a parasite on the good. The good (which is the rational) has nothing to gain from the evil (the irrational) except misery and despair. On the other hand, evil has everything to gain from the good. A store doesn't need a thief, but a thief needs a store and what's been produced by others. A free, prosperous nation doesn't need help from a corrupt dictatorship, but the dictatorship will want help and goods from the prosperous nations. Evil wants to destroy, but it first must have something to destroy.
As the quote from Jefferson at the beginning implies, the man of integrity is an absolutist, at least when it comes to morality. He is willing to listen and learn from others, and even let some things slide, but only certain things, and only up to a point. He is never willing to compromise principles or morality. This is because he understands that the power of the good is much greater than evil, but only if the good is consistent. Evil is always lurking and looking for any concession or weakness to exploit (this is metaphorical, of course, not suggesting evil is actually physically lurking). Just one lapse gives it the opportunity to take hold. If a congressman who starts out good is convinced to compromise on an important issue, then evil has taken root, even if the congressman still feels like he can use that compromise to achieve something good. Now, he will no longer be able to stand up for that principle as an absolute, as he has allowed it to be corrupted. He has allowed the principle that he knew was true to be compromised. Compromised for what? If the principle was true and the good, then it had nothing to gain by being compromised in the first place, so it can only lose. Just as bad, his mind knew it was true, and he allowed his mind to be corrupted, which has far reaching implications into the psyche. When this happens, most people do their best to evade reality and "rationalize" what they did. However, rationalizing is NOT the same as using reason. Since getting the consciousness to avoid reality is ultimately not possible, it works to destroy the person. If the congressman allows this to continue, soon he has no principles left, and spends his political life making backroom deals, compromises and God knows what else, while often being forced to lie and cover-up his actions to the public. Not surprisingly, the use of anti-depressant drugs is quite common among politicians!
Could also be a book of modern ethics!
The good must see morality in black and white, while the evil will try to turn everything into shades of gray, as it must. Most people don't want to do something that is clearly evil, so it happens gradually. Government usually doesn't rapidly erode freedoms, it takes it piece by piece. "It's for the greater good", or "to protect our security", or "it's just temporary". The list of rationalizations are endless, but at each step, evil gains a foothold. Clearly, everyone has made moral mistakes and committed evil in their lives. Thankfully, no matter how evil someone has been in the past, the human consciousness is volitional, and can decide to change and be good at any moment. In that sense, everyone with a properly functioning brain has the ability to be good. The key is to identify evil, and strive to eliminate it from your life. Evil is like cancer, and having a little bit of evil is like having a little bit of cancer. If you ignore it or try to evade it, it will continue to grow if not fought off, and eventually destroy you. It's ultimately each of our decisions to be good and uphold our principles from each moment on, or not. We are not helpless creatures that are unable to stop ourselves from sinning. We have the ability to choose the correct principles, and the ability to practice them consistently with unbreached integrity. The more integrity you lack, the more happiness and self-esteem you will lack. That is the reality of our consciousness.
The next post will deal with the virtue of honesty.
The next post will deal with the virtue of honesty.