Posts
Here is an interesting article for you to read. Lisa (as usual) brought up an interesting question about Hitler and integrity. Definitions seem to abound on the meaning of integrity: Interesting interview with Stephen Carter, author of the book Integrity.
"There is a broad range of issues on which we have to be willing to say that people of integrity can take different sides. I happen to be an opponent of the death penalty. I think that position has some integrity to it. I know a lot of thoughtful people with plenty of integrity who are in favor of the death penalty. I don't think they are evil or morally worse than I am. I don't think they are stupid. They've reflected and reached a different view.
I also believe there is a small set of issues about which a person of integrity can hold only one position. For example, we can say racial hatred and mass slaughter are wrong. We know that from history. We don't need to agree on a philosophical system to agree on that.
"There is a lot of moral agreement in America. The amount of moral disagreement is exaggerated because the media focuses on a handful of issues on which people have sharply different views--abortion, gay rights, affirmative action. But beyond this there is a large core on which we can reach agreement. These teachings are common to various religious traditions. They also show up in public opinion surveys and in the Constitution. For example: respecting others, believing in family, not lying or stealing, being courageous."
Read the entire article (don't worry it is short) and let me know your thoughts..I anxiously await!
http://tatumweb.com/internet/integrity-01.htm
It's gratifying to find a piece about integrity that recognizes that morals are *not* a result of religion. So many of these conversations are based on one particular doctrine of faith -- even the Constitutional ones -- that the true notion of morality gets lost in the hyperbole.
ReplyDeleteNice find, Chris, and I'm sorry I missed the discussion.
I understand that your idea of courageous and mine might not include all the points that someone else includes in their definition...but it does hold some commonality. It's funny how we jump to a dictionary to determine how words should be interrupted. All of these definitions use words that are subjective -since integrity is so personal to each individual - what makes us accept these definitions as the base of our truth?
ReplyDeleteAccording to Merriam Webster, integrity is:
1. Firm adherence to a code of moral or artistic values – INCORRUPTIBILITY
2. An unimpaired condition – SOUNDNESS
3. The quality or state of being complete or undivided - Completeness
Synonym – see Honesty
According to Oxford dictionary (the origin of) integrity is intefrity/integriti
Latin: integritas; from integer ‘intact, whole.’
1. The quality of being honest and morally upright
2. The state of being whole or unified
3. Soundness of construction
Integrity is an opinion based on life experiences and a personal understanding of the meaning behind it - human integrity that is.
.
Each individual has to learn what integrity is, how it works, who can have it, when to use it, and where it applies. It becomes your personal definition – and ONLY YOU can apply integrity into your life. You only have integrity if you want it and YOU SEE IT’S VALUE. But we do accept the subjectiveness of these words as a society even if they do invoke a particular feeling and insight.