Not by far. Otherwise there wouldn't be a ton of people who made it their profession to either find the loopholes in that written record for a legitimate way out of what was promised, or to protect others from that. Or both, whatever makes them the most money.

Which is why most of the time people just get to put their signature underneath other people's words constructed in the first person.
So in fact, most of the time it literally is someone elses word for what you said, although you meant something else.

If you need to write it down, your word essentially means nothing. Which was his point.

There are still places where someone's word actually means something, or is supposed to mean something until further notice.

I think the ideal of a man's word was highly prized in European culture in medieval times (but this is true also today), but I don't think people were more trustworthy. I think such views stem mostly from us romanticizing the different historic periods that make this age.

We can be certain various "crime rates" (not all comparable actions that we today consider crimes in most western countries would not always have been crimes in these days, but I suspect the claim holds even without these) were likely much higher, we know civilization was far more clustered and society less joined compared to antiquity and today, we know demographics and boundaries shifted far more easily due to war and strife, we know law was rarely universal and we know education generally speaking took a sharp decline. These are not what I would see as signs of cultures where honor was more highly regarded than today.

Though it should be said that speaking categorically about medieval European history is next to pointless as it is such a broad term; The politics, history and cultural trends of the Republic of Venice (which is a highly recommended study subject for anyone interested in history or simply a good story) bears little resemblance to the politics, history and cultural trends of Prussia in the same period.

I disagree (this doesn't mean to imply that you're wrong however) and I believe that your view of present-day integrity is shaped as such because of the way that you are defining integrity - with the inclusion of a normative quality.

To elaborate: there are three different conceptions of integrity commonly researched in the literature.

The first conceptualisation views integrity as consistency, where integrity is defined not by the characteristics of one’s values or morals, but by the perception that the values are applied consistently. In other words, those with integrity ‘practice what they preach’ and ‘do what they say they will do’ (Kouzes and Posner, 2002; Palanski and Yammarino, 2007; Kalshoven et al., 2011; Yukl and Van Fleet, 1992).

The second conceptualisation places moral values as the foundation of integrity. Therefore, those with integrity are judged based on the values they hold but not necessarily on whether they behave consistently with them (Craig and Gustafson, 1998; Becker, 1998).

The third conceptualisation combines both the behavioural consistency and the moral values of the individual so that those with integrity are judged based on both the values they hold and the consistency of their application (Mayer et al., 1995; Dunn, 2009).

Most define it by number 3 - as it appears you do as well - but I personally conceptualise it as a skill - likened to number 1 but also different from it. So the normative quality in my understanding is not important. In other words, the likes of Hitler and Stalin could potentially be observed as having had higher-than-usual levels of integrity, although their moral dispositions were highly askew. I think integrity - as a value - needs to be separated from morality, because of the enormous practical implications from such a separation, and because of the future possibility of integrity training and development.

When in doubt accuse of cultural bias? No, this discussion is not that simple. What you are claiming is that people hold more to their word. You need a metric of this, and obviously these people are long dead so you need an indirect metric.

Most people" are forgotten by history, something which is important to remember. Medieval history is a tricky subject, sources are far weaker and more far between than in periods past and later. What most people did or how they acted is in medieval times something which we must mostly infer.

I hold that more crime, more war, more strife and far more clustered civilization (almost to the extreme, roads combining major cities or regions in Europe tend to be from antiquity or modern times) are relevant, and evidence that a notion of people honoring their word (both to ingroup and outgroup) more seems dubious.

We can infer that due to a comparative lack of written contracts, most social and work contracts were verbal - on the basis of one's word. We can also infer that in such a world the value of - consistency between words and deeds - would have been prioritised higher: as a direct consequence of this.

Are these unfair inferences?

More crime, war, strife etc. is only important if you're defining integrity using a normative quality - as demonstrated in my last post. These outcome metrics are not indications of lacking integrity if you're defining integrity as a value separate to morality: simply as a preference ordering and nothing more; in other words - as a value, but not a moral value.

For example. If more people had integrity back then, but their integrity was directed toward endeavors that were immoral, this would not be an indication of them lacking integrity, but simply an indication of them lacking the same moral values as modern day society.

I think it is a bit simplistic, as you have to see this in conjunction with the drastic drop in education. I don't know if literacy rates were affected (but I suspect so), but at the very least much the various roles that would oversee such things fell away, compared to the many societies in European antiquity that would have much more readily available institutions such as solicitors, lawyers, non-partisan scribes etc available.

I'll admit that this can give credence to your notion that word of mouth was more important, as people would have to rely more on it, but I think there is more to the discussion.

It is about a bit more than this if you think about it.

I'm fairly certain we can reasonably assume that trend of people's willingness to adhere to their own word is also mirrored in their willingness to respect norms. It is not necessarily the same characteristic, and we can find individuals where this does not hold true (for example organized crime figures), but I still think the overaching trend would be visible.

It could indeed be. However I think it would be more greatly related to people's self-image and the kind of image they wish to portray to the people around them. Those who want to portray an image of being reliable and trustworthy (sticking to their word) will try harder and develop their integrity further. Those who care little for what others think of them might not.

The fact of the matter is that people's integrity is directly related to their trustworthiness and to the quality of social relations they have with others in their life, and it is difficult to tell to what extent this is an outcome of integrity (high levels of it) and to what extent it is the cause.

I agree with that, and there are certainly societies where such things have been held in very great stock. The classic Roman virtue of "dignitas" bears some resemblance to what you describe here, where a person's lifetime of moral and ethical actions is what should determine a person's standing. Damage to dignitas was often seen as extremely severe; many would rather lose their life.

But to what extent this permeated the entirety of Roman society or if it was an ideal that more readily made it into penmanship is a difficult question, just as to what extent the conceptualization of "honor" (broadly speaking) permeated later various European medieval societies societies is a difficult question. We might be mistaking idolization for actuality.

I find the philosophy and psychology of non-normative values (values unrelated to morality) very interesting and often I suspect that the benefits of holding certain values (such as integrity) can outweigh the negatives of any immoral behaviour that may result from a high competency in such values.

For example, integrity relates to trustworthiness and trustworthiness directly relates to altruism. So although, every now and then, someone with high levels of integrity might come along and use that competence to do something greatly immoral, such isolated acts can be largely offset by all those who are using their integrity for the good of humanity. So this concept of 'dignitas' as you mention might be on the ball after all.

Well, I agree to to an extent. Integrity, even when held to morals we don't agree with, at the very last makes it easier to use reason and rationality when dealing with other people / entities (states/companies or whatnot). However, very strong adherence to principle rather than consequence can also be very dangerous.

I think societies where adherence to principle rather than consequence is prevalent are easier to corrupt from the "core" for example, whereas more consequentialist societies might be more prone to "moral decay", I also think they are more elastic and can more readily snap back from such "decay" (by "moral decay" I don't mean decay from a set moral standard, merely a decay from any given moral standard).

Hmmm, I'll definitely have a think about this with regard to integrity. My initial thoughts would first question whether a focus on consequences stemming from immoral individuals detracts from the importance of the principle. The more we focus on potential consequences, the more we focus on exceptions to the rule/principle and in a way this is a great method for building awareness of the limitations to any principle. On the other hand, there will always be those that only focus on the limitations and, as such, fail to perceive the utility of the principle.
Yes, but with significantly less adherence to principles I suspect that you also limit or slow societal and technological progress.
They are more elastic since they give more weight to consequences as opposed to unchanging (blanket) rules/principles, but this elasticity is also largely reliant on the adherence to the principle (integrity) itself. One can not improve the world without maintaining consistency between their promises and their deeds. In fact, very little can be accomplished without adherence to this principle, potentially slowing overall progress.

Of course, this is based on the assumption that more people would use their integrity toward moral goals and that the consequences of their behaviour would outweigh the consequences of those who use their integrity toward immoral goals.

If progress is slowed, as such, future generations will not have it much better than we had it, and from a utilitarian point of view this consequentialist framework may appear more selfish over the long-term: sacrificing progress for the momentary illusion of security and safety (from potential immoral behaviour).

let me say one word to this thread though, since it got derailed pretty much

i think western values and western myths (like the american dream) have come to an end. nobody believes in this values/myths anymore, sure they still exist, but more and more people dont identify with them anymore.

that leaves a hole anybody could use.

the question i asked at the beginnig is the islam a decent candidate to fill this hole?

You aren't required to adapt your ideologies based on culture and religion. What is it about Islam that makes you consider converting? Why any religion for that matter, or why not another one? These are questions no one else can answer for you. Do you think other people should tell you what to believe in and how to live your life?....bc that is basically what you're asking. Just do what makes sense to you....no one knows whats going to be better for you than you.

well maybe someone in this forum has made that experience already and might wanna share his insights with me.

Experience is subjective....there is no one in the universe that is having the same experience in life as you. believe in whatever makes the most sense to you personally....no one can tell u what that is or why you believe in it.

It's rare for people to move from atheist to islamic. Why? for the same reasons it's rare for people to move from islamic to atheist.

If you need some 'higher-being' to worship to give meaning to your life then consider why you're defining 'meaning' in such a narrow sense.

Since theists are far more common I suspect "theist->atheist" is more common than "atheist->theist".

It is also no secret that modern day science both works very well and seemingly describes a world where God is not a necessary variable to explain direct causes. We can explain thunder just fine without sky-chariots. Serious arguments for God these days are mostly very abstract, to the point where "God" is more of an intellectual container than an entity.

dont know if we both have enough knowledge about islam to say anything about it. and if you go on it psychology wise people calling themselves atheist might worship captalistic status symbols like mentioned earlier.

needing god as a variable in the universe is something that is just an option. the question about the last reason might be more important in europe than anywhere else.

in fact alot of african religions dont even think about the question "where does mankind come from"

Capitalist symbols like "$" are actually quite fun.

believe me even this game might get boring.

and for most people the game of capitalism is trying their whole life getting these $ and never haveing enought to actually do what they want.

and what they "want": buying things they dont need, with money they dont have, to impress people they dont like.

Well at least try to be good at something.

Instead of spending time reading an ancient book, push your own human potential further.

Improve yourself mentally and physically. Take things you see weak about you and diligently work at it. That's the fun part.

Turning to a religion as a scapegoat is quite weak, you're looking for something to make yourself feel better without putting in the work grow out of your comfort zone.

right ive been lazy the past weeks. gonna temp-ban me tomorrow and do something.

gonna get out of the hole.

still think it would be a fun game as a secret agent deep inside radical islam. playing a double game. hopefully you never lose your focus while playing this kind of game.

you know im kidding ofc

Working on improving yourself is the most fun part. Make a list of things you are weak at, money, physical, mental, do something about it.

When you can see measurable results in all, that's the enjoyment.

When you think about doing things to fit in with others, that's the wrong way to look at it.

Good man, hope you do something productive.

Remember, the things that are worth having and fun to have is not easy to obtain.

If you want to excel physically, this takes a lot of work. Hours of dedication and commitment.
If you want to improve mentality. This applies to, you don't just sit around and your mind improves, becomes stronger, you have to push the limits outwards.
If you want to improve financially (for yourself, not for others to see), there's a lot of work that has to be put in (mental work). Not just clocking at any random job you can find.
Even relationship. Realize that the person that will bring you happiness may not date the person you are now, that person will demand from themselves, and in return will demand a lot from you. And this is a good thing. No demands on a single organism will result in that organism remaining stale and un-evolved.

In all things, all the things I have in my life that bring me happiness, and there's quite a few, I fought tooth and nail for it and continue to fight. Sometimes the journey is very long and dark, but the reward is very gratifying.


One more thing to add for you: nobody is going to hand over anything worth having over to you for free. Nobody, none, nada. You have to fight for it.

I completely agree with you but sometimes I also see people pushing themselves too hard, to the point that they become perfectionists. In psychological literature, a perfectionist Type-A personality has been consistently associated with (a) narcissism and (b) all sorts of health problems later in life, including death at a relatively early age.

As such, I wouldn't throw this advice around without preliminary cautions. The attainment of wisdom and inner-peace with one's body is a process of continuous re-evaluation and fine-tuning. One must know their limitations and leisure requirements as well as knowing their weaknesses upon which to apply their integrity toward improving.

On a related note, your chances of dying in a car accident or some sort of freak accident are always there as well. It would be a shame to waste the one life you do have on continuous self-improvement; leisure and escapism ought also be prioritized. For me, these include travelling, watching endless T.V. shows (including trashy shows), competitive online gaming, recreational drug use and socialising.