The Deception of the Thrush

I read once that 85% of Americans believe themselves to be of above average morality. Maybe a better statistician than I can make sense of that... In this light, I'm curious to see how many commenters on this post admit to falling below average along the integrity spectrum.

I think an interesting offshoot of this discussion (or maybe it's a central theme) is the intersection of integrity and morality. I think the latter is used often when the intent is to convey the former. Morality, to some people, hinges on adopting obscure (and often arbitrary) principles of religion. Integrity, on the other hand, is more about being true to one's word and values even when it would be easier or beneficial not to.

Thanks, Jim, for the comment, and I appreciate your observation regarding integrity and morality--namely because when I wrote this post, I didn't want to start a big discussion on good & bad and right & wrong but more on this idea of, what makes you into a person that can respect him/herself at the end of the day? --and I knew that morality wasn't the appropriate term, and that integrity was probably closer. Morality does immediately evoke the idea of some formal system--I imagine related to whatever the dominant ideology is in any given society. I know that's why I would have trouble answering the question of how I rank on the morality scale, because it's hard to really know exactly what principles we are talking about. But yes, I woud be interested to see if anyone claims to be subpar on the morals. First one to do so wins a cookie...maybe.

In that case, I am a low down immoral pig, to put it nicely. I like those brown macadamia nut cookies.

Oh yeah, and oatmeal raisin too.

There's my level of integrity; I'll say (write) anything on the off chance that it might get me a cookie.

I'll be happy to say that, since I'm not particularly beholden to any particular attempt at codifying behavior, but I acknowledge that this, by necessity, makes me sub-par, since par is generally defined by the adherence to absolutes. I, on the other hand, take my good deeds, as well as my evil ones, on a case-by-case basis.

I empathize with your wanting to avoid the semantics but since my dictionary defines "integrity" as "steadfast adherence to a moral or ethical code" than by virtue of my aforementioned allegiance to a more relative ethos grants me a sum total of zero in the integrity column. A situation I find problematic because it assumes that, because I base my judgements on conduct (ethics) rather than a sense of innate character (morals) that I'm starting at a loss.

That said, I want my cookie.

Well, given that I immediately picked up on Jim's comment teasing apart the meanings of integrity and morality, then I broke my own no-semantics rule (so much for my integrity...) So I forgive the dictionary reference...

Next time I'm in Minneapolis, I shall have to go around delivering cookies to all you shameless pond scum ;-)

Thanks, Karin.

But (and this might betray my own connections to the wonderful world of psychology, albeit from a different level of inquiry than your own) this question is one of enormous proportions (and importance) when expanded beyond the level of the individual and thrust upward (surface to air, as it were) to the level of the group, or nation, or beyond. Some questions come to mind:

Can a group "represent" integrity at the expense of another group? Who makes that determination?

Can the actions of an *entire* nation be said to have integrity when that same nation holds a variety of individual and group differences?

How do these questions, in their unanswered, and some would argue, unanswerable, status, frame our discussions of right and wrong? Does it operate a dialectical or dialogic mechanism, with ever-changing outcomes? Or are simple dilineations between right and wrong overdetermined by complexities inherent on the level of language as espoused by verbose jerks like me?

What do you think?

Karin, et al:

Not to be difficult, but the subject of integrity is not a road I'd travel without first agreeing upon an acceptable definition. Websters . . .is good enough for me: #3 "...The quality or state of being of *sound* moral principles,... *honesty* and *sincerity*. If I were passing judgement on myself or others, I'd focus on the three emphasized words.

How validly one might answer your question regarding personal integrity is dependent, I feel, on how well one understands and accepts a definition of integrity reasonably similar to Websters'. Their opposites--*unsound, dishonest, insincere* reflect the opposite of integrity. If 85% of Americans believe themselves to be above the average morality, while roughly the same number admit to cheating on their income taxes, it makes you wonder if their definition of integrity matches that of Webster.

That said, let's use Jim's assessment of integrity ("...being true to one's word and values when it would be easier or beneficial not to") along with Websters' "state of being" to, first, answer your questions (re: one's personal integrity) with a simple "yes" or "no."

Do I possess integrity? "No"; Is it a part of my self-concept? "Yes"; Is it a concern that pervades my daily behavior? "Yes"; Is it a compartmentalized virtue? "Yes"

I'm both paraphrasing John Adams, and generalizing here, when I write--*Man is good only when he has to be.* That's included, in part, to suggest that maybe the anwers I've supplied above, might truly apply to 85% of Americans--cynicism aside.

Feeling like you don't have integrity is not a comfortable feeling. The lack of it, is probably why Purgatory was created--if you accept the concept. Its scattershot application is similar to sins of omission. It's not what you did, or said; it's what you didn't do, or say--even though you knew better.

When you act with integrity you do feel better about yourself having acted on principle, having been honest and sincere. You might make the "world" a better place. But, unfortunately, virtue being its own reward is not always sufficient motivation--and rationalization and repression are very effective defense mechanisms.