Inspired by lastandcharlie's thread on Charisma.

The literature on integrity both old (see Aristotle, Ayn Rand etc.) and new (see Moorman et al., 2012) largely assumes that its definition requires a normative quality. As such, it places moral values as the foundation of integrity. Therefore, those with integrity are judged based on both the moral values they hold and on whether they consistently enact those values in their behavior.

I am very interested in this topic and would like to get some opinions from my fellow SMP'ers on whether they view integrity as (a) consistency between a person's words (promises) and deeds or whether they view it as (b) consistency between a person's moral values and deeds or (c) both (as the literature suggests).

I'm of the opinion that those with high levels of (a) are likely to reflect high levels of (c), making the distinction largely redundant but I'd like to hear from you.

Rather than some pretty vague references can you provide either links or quotes. Cheers

At first glance without much thinking about it:
(a) is how we recognize the phenomena.
(b) is more or less an acceptable (for me) definition of the phenomena.

So, without (a) we can't establish (b) because we can't read minds, person's moral values need to be told to us so we can compare them to his deeds, which means the right answer is (c) no?

I think it's mainly (b). Sometimes you might not fully think about something until the moment arises, in which case maybe you reach a different (but genuine) conclusion than before and so you may have said something different before but are still adhering to your values now. The caveat is that some people might change their mind for a different reason (ie they promised not to succumb to temptation, but then they actually experienced temptation and now they come up with some justification).

I would also add that integrity staying true to oneself / not compromising oneself. If someone points a gun to your head and tells you to do something heinous that you think shouldn't be done under any circumstances, then if you have full integrity, you won't do it.

Sounds trite but I do my best to live by the Golden Rule esp when nobody will know except me. On occasion, when dealing w/ loathsome ppl, I wish I had no conscience and then feel guilty about that.

What are the differences between these 3 hypothetical societies?

Society 1 - Integrity is defined as a
Society 2 - Integrity is defined as b
Society 3 - Integrity is defined as c

"b" seems to stands on it's own from an individual perspective, but "a" seems like a requisite component to maximize the integrity of a society/social system.

I interrupt this tread with a message from the SMP critical thinking skills management system.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

What is personal integrity?



Nothing more than making sure you shoot the right people.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

I now return you to your regular programing.

What gun is that? It looks exactly like what I want.

Both your thread and Charlie's can be answered with a question: What is reification?

It is called a shot gun.

Specifically, it looks like a super shorty (except that it doesn't have a flip down front grip). Good for if you have a hard time hitting the broad side of a barn from 10 feet away. Not so good if you have to hit anything from more than 10 feet away.

It gets my vote for weapon of choice in case of a Zombie Apocalypse.

Better yet an android app 12 gauge shotgun. Its not even a real gun, exactly in line with the eternal dark humor of Zeno! http://www.amazon.com/Leopold-Shotgun/dp/B00CLUIEYQ

That is probably not useful as the Super Shorty for the Zombie Apocalypse.

Unless, of course, this sort of thing works:



(Pay attention to the end of the short clip. One of my favorite films, btw)

I suspected it wasn't a real gun. One gun site misidentified it as a Francheti SPAS-12, and another said it was made by a Turkish company, but he couldn't remember the name. How did you find the Amazon link?

After several searches that lead only to some 12 gauge Mossberg shotguns in terms of style i tried simply "shotgun" on amazon to see if they sell weapons out of curiosity. And there it was in the first page.

It may still however be a picture of a real gun used as example in the game but nothing came up other than the android app.

Sorry to VeeDDzz for contributing to the tangents.


By the way i find it hard to talk about this topic with any confidence because in order to do that we need to have a good understanding of the definition of integrity and then what is the point.

But one can still ask what kind of real life behavior/pattern constitutes a better form of integrity i suppose or leads to integrity. With integrity defined as consistency basically.

I think it has to be consistency between your ethical viewpoints/ideas and actions almost all your life in anything. Now that is still better in my opinion than promises to others and deeds. I think one can still appear as not consistent to others and still be consistent with their principles at a higher level which if they knew they would recognize and forgive what they perceive now as non integrity for example, reversing opinion.

An even better realistic form is to have consistency between your ethical positions/values etc and the opinion you have about your own actions. Because one may be unable to rise up to their own standard always but still capable to recognize their own failure and be honest to themselves about it and feel a level of failure that hurts them unlike that of an unethical person that doesnt mind and just goes for it always.

A real person cannot be perfect to their principles always but should at least be able to know they are not performing as they should and try to do something about it. That to me is a decent form of integrity that is probably more appropriate. Because true integrity is an almost impossible struggle and it has to start from at least this level of integrity (principles vs ideas about your own actions/self criticism etc). So you need at least integrity at this level in order to get the rest.

So lets start with consistency between your principles and the opinion you have about your own deeds.

Ps: the tangent of this thread got me thinking where the fack is the integrity of the conservatives in US that are pro gun lovers and claim to be of Christian values and they fail to start a movement for example to force the gun industry to create new bullets that do not kill as often as the current ones (eventually applied to all weapons everywhere other than military or police), they try instead to incapacitate the target as fast as possible by both injuring and then paralyzing for a period of time that can be significant. What if for example a bullet were to break upon impact and penetration (not have enough kinetic energy to do a deep damage but still enough to always penetrate a little to get its content into the blood stream) and has proper chemical agents in it that lead to loss of consciousness very fast or some form of incapacitation within seconds. Now the problem is to make this as fast as possible to simulate the effect that killing someone has in their ability to react. Such guns that are not stun guns or even exactly the current tranquilizer guns could be used by the police in situations that they simply want to end the action without killing the subject and they need to be doing it from a distance that stun guns cant be used etc.

Ideally one day we will have guns that kill very infrequently but are very effective in incapacitating or non lethally injuring the target. Research in that technology is in my opinion of substantial importance. Rarely you want the target dead in any kind of ethical defense or security situation. All you want is to neutralize them and then capture them maybe. The killing is not an ethical objective if incapacitating effectively takes out the threat near term and long term eventually. So how about focusing on a very fast bio-action bullet of these properties. I refuse to think this is not doable. Developing even complex guns that carry both kinds of bullets and offer the option to switch to lethal or less lethal at the spot may be of value as well. I am not saying that is easy but i refuse to believe that research cant arrive at something very close to offer as future weapons and phase out all other ones eventually from the population.

Now that is obviously another tangent but notice how it relates to the thread because now you should agree that having such a project to develop such weapons is an indication of true ethical integrity rather than what we see out there by conservatives for example.

Ps2: Knowing what is right or wrong in general is not crystal clear always and is up for debate and uncertainty but at least care to seek the truth must then exist. That is also a interesting property towards true integrity which also shows how strict integrity is no realistic anyway. This is why knowledge is the ultimate virtue/quality eventually. So how about integrity in the sense of consistently searching for knowledge and the truth and then properly acting or judging actions with it.

This page is the one that says it's a Franchi SPAS-12 (Italian, not made since 2000, and is significantly different), and this page says it's Turkish. Reverse image search using TinEye found others, but they didn't identify it, and it didn't even find ones I found on my own.

12-gauge, pump-action shotgun with pistol grip. Flip down round holder assembly optional.

Pistol grip shotguns are easy to acquire. Accessories are also. See links below:

http://www.mossberg.com/products/sho...ol-grip-8-shot

http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/prod/...Action_Shotgun


http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/prod/...un_Accessories

***************************

It's not just what you want, Howard - it is what you need. Remember that advice from that old Rolling Stones Song.

I respect your opinion and this is most often what I hear from people but my contention is that the normative quality and our sense of morals has little to nothing to do with it, despite that the concept has largely remained unchanged since Aristotle. In fact, I don't think its even been questioned (at least not in modern literature).
I am not building a case or hypothesis here. If it interests you, look into it. I'd like to think that my description is comprehensive enough to be understood - as per Benjola's understanding.
Yes, self-rationalisation (compromising your values and changing your mind when its convenient to do so) is a big issue indeed and most people are far too good at this to develop real integrity.
Interesting question indeed and phrased in this way, most are likely to select (c) I think. Yet I believe that the appeal of (c) prevents academics from accurately understanding the outcomes of integrity. When you define integrity so broadly as in (c), it becomes nearly impossible to measure and empirically investigate. As such, an understanding of the outcomes of high levels of integrity will not be available to us, beyond speculation and the occasional quote by a famous CEO making reference to it.
It may be abstract but it has really serious material implications.
Yes, I agree with your final description of integrity in the last paragraph here, as it largely removes the normative quality with which I disagree with as well. Moral values are too relative and they change too often to form the basis of a concept such as integrity, which has real and consistent implications on the world around us (e.g., those with high integrity are trusted more by the people around them, those with high integrity can be trusted by management to do the tasks appointed to them in a timely manner; increases in worker autonomy can be provided and greater innovation results, those with high integrity develop the skills necessary to overcome minor inconveniences and temptations that would otherwise surmount people who self-rationalise instead and so on).

Also, this may be important to the discussion at hand, but I don't view integrity as something you either have or do not have. I view it as a skill - of which some people have significantly developed, and others not as much. I believe everyone has it, to a certain degree - largely determined by how much they consciously value it. I also believe that the more you consciously value it, the better your life outcomes - both well-being/health and material outcomes.

FWIW, I want a gun bec it looks like I was a year early w/ this:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/41...hread-1352139/

and I've got about 4 months to get ready.

Someone once told me integrity is when your thought, your actions, and your spirituality are in line.

Unnecessary element bolded and underlined. If by 'spirituality' you mean 'moral compass' then you prefer the definition c.

However, I would argue that immoral people can also have high levels of integrity (i.e., organised crime members), so long as they value consistency between words/promises and deeds.

How do you determine morality? Integrity can be more accurately defined that morality IMO. Morality seems pretty useless because so many morality systems I have witnessed 2 Christians, one hetero and one homosexual, where they both condemn the other to hell. One is going to hell because they sleep with someone of the same sex... and unforgivable sin. The other is going to hell because their extreme lack of tolerance for their siblings under God.

Being a silent 3rd party observing arguments of such ridiculessness (that's probably not a word but I think it sounds good) lead me in the direction of thinking integrity is a less arbitrary (even if not 100% perfect) and more useful measuring stick.

That doesn't prove that morality is useless. It only proves that there are different moralities even among people who call themselves Christians. There are also different geometries. Does that make geometry useless?

Useless is probably the wrong term. What I meant is that since people can come closer towards being in agreement in terms of defining integrity than they can morality it would make integrity more valuable in an argument with a reasonable person.

Integrity is fairly easy. Consistency is a decent substitute. The issue is what sorts of consistencies are necessary and which ones aren't.

Should you be internally consistent? I think most would say yes.

Should you demonstrate consistency between words and actions? If you want to do business with me, yes.

Should your morals be consistent with my take on right and wrong? Absolutely. If your morals and/or actions disagree with mine, I will (with the utmost of integrity) destroy you.

I very much agree with this. This is also partly why I do not think the normative quality should form part of the definition of integrity. It simply confuses the conception of integrity and prevents research from seeing the positive relations between integrity and life outcomes.

I'm more interested in the integrity of that shotgun.