4.10.2009
Integrity is an often cited quality of character. (So it is for me; by
introducing it as a common view I don't mean to distance myself from it.)
To ascribe integrity to someone is an expression of acclaim: we're not
merely describing, in a neutral way, a property of someone's character, but
rather applaud them for what they do. Thereby we express an attitude
which has at least two elements. The first is an evaluation, a statement of
value: someone who acts with integrity does something that is, in an
important sense, the right thing to do. The second is an appreciation of an
excellence, an acknowledgment of a quality that is at the very least not
something we can always take for granted, a strength of character that is
rare enough to be notable (and presumably has required some work by the
person who has achieved it).
1) 'The right thing to do' can be taken in different senses: for
instance, it may mean the most reasonable way of doing something given a
particular goal, such as in 'If you want to be out of the office by five,
better don't tell the manager about this problem with the presentation
software; leave it till tomorrow.' Depending on the actual circumstances,
this may be a prudent recommendation or a suggestion to act irresponsibly:
if the manager is known from experience to bully people into working
overtime because of mere trifles it may be reasonable to evade potential
trouble; if, however, the suggestion stems from you and your co-worker
sharing a sense that some fun activity you hope to engage in is more
important than doing a good job at the office, the suggestion would betray
a questionable attitude. In both instances, however, given a certain
attitude and goal, there is a best course of action, and 'the right thing
to do' may refer to this relative optimality.
This is not the sense I had in mind when I wrote that integrity means to
do the right thing, in an important sense. There is a stronger sense
of 'the right thing to do' which implies that a behavior such as in the
second scenario above would not count as correct, as the right thing. Doing
the right thing, in that sense, comprises more than just cleverly following
your own selfish interests; it includes at the very least consideration of
others' interests, and probably further respect for more abstract values
such as truth (or beauty). Doing the right thing, in this stronger sense,
is often referred to using terms such as just, honest, kind, generous;
actions that have these qualities generally count as good in themselves
(not merely good for a specific purpose, and for a particular person); so
they are of value, and when we ascribe integrity to someone one thing we
express is our taking these things as valuable and recognizing them, along
with their value, in that person. (Of course, it's a further question why
exactly these things are valuable, what the philosophical basis is for
viewing them so, and actually, that's an entire field in philosophy; but
I won't go much deeper into these questions here.)
2) People don't always act with integrity; it's a rare quality of
character. We have to qualify this observation, however: in addition to
the many cases in which we notice a lack of integrity, and the very few
when we recognize a person as acting with it, there is a huge number of
neutral situations, in everyday life and even often in exceptional
situations, where neither the presence nor the absence of integrity is
something we are directly aware of. Especially in daily life, our actions
may simply (and unproblematically) remain consistent with what is the right
thing to do, and nobody would pay attention to the question. (Except perhaps
the person herself, if integrity is a character quality she strives to
build.) Often it is only when there is an apparent conflict, a temptation
to do something that would not be consistent with integrity, the question
would arise for an observer how the behavior of someone should be seen with
respect to the integrity of that person.
So, to go back to the examples in the previous paragraph once more, if
you resist the attempt of a co-worker to irresponsibly suppress vital
information, even if that brings you into the unpleasant position of having
to do overtime, this displays integrity; the condition for it to be noticed
on the outside is a (visible) situation of conflict: it must be apparent
that there are several courses of action, where some are tempting and
possibly sanctioned by the opinions of some. (It seems that other people's
approval or disapproval plays a strong role in what we decide to do, and
conflict is typically more severe when the right thing to do is a course of
action that goes against the grain of dominant opinion.)
But of course, integrity, and doing the right thing, remains an option
even when it is not visible, when there is no situation of conflict, when
there are no adverse circumstances to withstand. Nobody (including yourself)
may directly notice, most of the time, whether you're acting with
integrity or not. Part of what we appreciate in people with integrity is
that nevertheless, regardless of whether it is approved or even registered
by anyone, they act soundly and reasonably. This consistency in their
actions rarely shows; when it does (when they act soundly and reasonably
even in the face of temptations or pressure to do otherwise) we
ascribe integrity to them, and as I said, applaud them. But that
doesn't imply that this very integrity wasn't there all the time. (If, on
the other hand, we would learn of someone that his actions were for a long
time merely a show, a calculated display of good character qualities, while
in private it was quite a different story, that would quickly get us to
revoke any ascription of integrity to that person which we had previously
made.)
3) In my reflections on integrity so far, I have used an
intuitive notion of integrity, one that is hopefully mostly consistent
with ordinary usage. However, there is some philosophical discussion both
about what exactly it means for someone to have integrity, and what the
connections to related issues in ethics (and other areas of philosophy)
might be. I think it is now time to turn to a closer examination of the
different approaches to analyze the concept of integrity in recent research
literature.
