“Integrity has no need of rules.” – Albert Camus
A child stumbles and falls. You help the child up; check to see if it was injured in the fall, and offer a sense of understanding and comfort. Do you do that because there is a rule that says you have to? Do you do it because others are looking, and you want them to think well of you toward some benefit as such a reputation might bring? The only probable selfishness in the act might be that you couldn’t stand yourself if you didn’t. But while you think that may be universally true, it is not.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-15386700
But the problem is not just in China. For almost a decade, a war raged in Sierra Leone killing and displacing thousands of children, and making soldiers out of many who could not run away. Then, after the war, children were put to work in diamond mines where there was very little respect for their humanity, much less for their childhood. But that is perhaps true of the lucky ones. Though the civil war ended in 2002, many children still live in a daily horror that many much more fortunate folks do not want to hear about. But just take a peak at it, anyway:
http://allafrica.com/stories/201109130003.html
In another war that began earlier, and still rages in Somalia, children carry automatic weapons while most of the world looks the other way, and has been looking the other way now for almost twenty years.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/africa/14somalia.html
So, what we think may be an internalized value associated with the word “child”, is not true for all children, is it? Further, there is a feeling among some that after a certain age, should the person stumble and fall, it is their own fault, and that they deserved it. But what if the thing that tripped them up was placed there intentionally and deceptively by someone else? What do you think of the con artist’s justification that the victims were adults, and should have known better than to trust him? The con artist has values: he values wealth, but he has no integrity.
We need to get past the presumption that values equal integrity. It is normal for most people to feel their own values have some integrity. But the mental picture of what that means for each of us is likely to be as different as it would be if were using the word “quality”. Some folks think it unethical to compromise their values, but in fact, in some cases, it just might be unethical to uphold them. I think that’s what happened to Bernie Madoff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madoff_investment_scandal
The scams perpetrated by Bernie Madoff horrified many people. It is common to speak of him with condemnation, and with sympathy for his victims. It would be most unpopular to call his victims foolish, or to in any way imply that they had it coming. Due to the size of his scheme, it seemed unprecedented, but it is not new: the term “moral hazard” has been used in business since the 1600′s. Bernie Madoff, as it turns out, was not a man of integrity, but he was certainly a man with values: money, and lots of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard
In recent years, folks have become quite nervous about things they value, because there has been so much change and upheaval, not just here, but worldwide. While corruption is not new in high places (businesses, governments, and other institutions), there is more media now, more than at any other time in history, to talk about it. And they do. Consequently, a lot of people do not respect their own leaders in business, government, and some other institutions, and suspect the feeling is mutual. This breakdown in even the minimal appearance of respect seems to feed on itself, and results in other breakdowns. And with this comes no common opinion shared by all as to who must suffer the consequences of fiscal irresponsibility. Yet a lot of people on both sides of the isles applauded when Bill Clinton signed the CFMA into law:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-connor/celebrating-ten-years-of_b_799981.html
So much strife and confusion about the breakdown of economic and social systems, as well as the morality that should have prevented these breakdowns, have people clamoring for new rules. The purpose seems to be, as always, so that we can monitor the behavior of others (it is always the others). It is believed justified, and even necessary, so that the fear of losing things we value will subside. The leverage for who gets to make the new rules is politics, and it is about values.
It is always about values. If it were a matter of integrity, Would the world’s huge investment bankers gotten themselves bogged down in such a mud hole of fraud and deception over the years leading up to the debacle of 2008? Would there be any environmental issues in politics? Of course not, but don’t expect integrity to creep in and take over politics, because that is not going to happen. Politics manages (and manipulates) the fears related to loss of values, and it very much needs the public to keep values confused with ethics. And because of it, the term “moral hazard” will not go away.
No matter what your political thoughts are, it will be true that you fear, and cannot help but fear, that the party you see as opposition threatens to take from you something you value. Additionally, you are likely to believe that the opposition party lacks a sense of honest integrity. Trust me, they feel exactly the same way about you. The political process will be driven by values, but not by integrity. The belief that ethics are even a small part of it is a myth. There are quite a few popular myths about ethics:
http://accounting.smartpros.com/x38366.xml
But is that kind of thinking applicable to the differences that divide the worlds religions? There must be some reason they treat each other so badly, and do it in the name of the highest ethical authority they can think of. It is common for respective members of any religion or denomination to want to believe they are driven by the very highest integrity and ethical standards. Yet what keeps them at war with each other is not so much ethics, but what they’ve chosen to value (even though those values change from time to time), and the fear (nurtured by intentionally and politically imposed misunderstandings) that those values are at risk. What IS at risk is not integrity, but dogma, and the people empowered by it.
Adolf Hitler was empowered by what the German people were lead to believe. They also thought that he believed in them. Towards the end of WWII, Hitler said that if the German people would not willingly die for the fatherland, they deserved to be defeated. Then, he committed suicide. By then, over fifty million people were dead, and not because they were victims of integrity.
What people value does change. My grandfather wore a proper hat whenever he went into public places, and thought it to be important. At the time, it was customary. It was considered impolite not to. So, hats vere valued in some way different than they are today. But does it mean that men who go into public without a proper fedora today are rude, or disrespectful? No, of course it doesn’t.
Some years ago, the idea of universal suffrage was considered by some to be serious attack on core values. At the same time, many thought the idea represented principles of fairness, and implied a respect for a person’s humanity. As it turned out, the old value system proved to have no sustainable integrity, and was changed. Today, universal suffrage in the United States is considered to be a part of “core values”.
So, values and integrity are not the same thing, are they? What one person values may be seen simply as covetousness by another person. So it is not that we should seek a society of values AND integrity as much as we should want a society that has a value OF integrity. But is such universal respect likely to happen? At Christmas time, many people sing about “Peace on Earth, Goodwill to Men”, but is it sung widely by people with no hatred, or fear of mankind in their heart? Will all the people in the world resolve all of a sudden to be committed to treating each other with respect? Not likely? Well then, I guess it is up to each individual to decide if what they really want is to do the right thing. It’s always been that way.
“If everyone were clothed with integrity, if every heart were just, frank, kindly, the other virtues would be well-nigh useless.” – Moliere
Posted by Brett on November 2, 2011 at 1:36 am
I agree. No amount of regulation can substitute for individual integrity. But our current government structure with the aid of our teachers has created a mindset of collectivism, where an individual acts within the expectations of the group and is limited by its laws. I believe the destruction of the individual in favor of the collective has created these flaws in our current society. Individual rights (both social and economic) need to be returned, but also with individual responsibilities and the negatives that can result when one makes bad decisions. On a side note, you might give us your def. of values and ethics. I think the definitions are illuminated by the text, but it might help if perhaps you wrote about the differances between the two.
Posted by thevanbrown on November 2, 2011 at 12:37 pm
Thank you Brett. While it has been my practice to reply privately to comments in the past, I felt the clarification you asked for was worthy. Part of what prompted this writing was how the word “values” has come to be so often used. Just because a person wants or desires something, or some collective set of circumstances, does not guarantee the desired thing or circumstance to be necessarily good. Wanting something doesn’t make it good or bad, it just establishes a presumed quality, and even a presumed utility. And often, as is the case with presumption, the outcome of getting those desires realized may not have a desirable effect on everyone concerned.
In sports, each team desires to win. Neither team desires to lose. One team will get the prize they value, and the other will not. But if the game is not played fairly; if the competition is not ethical, then the outcome of it, whether valued or not, will not be a product of integrity. If a man robs a store at gunpoint, and leaves with the items he values (covets), it can be qualified as a win for him in some sense, but certainly not in a moral one.
I’m sure you’ve heard it said: “one man’s trash is another man’s treasure; one man’s pain is another man’s pleasure…”, and while there may be truth in that, it does not imply that there is anything ethical in the wanting. What a person may desire depending on their tendency to be altruistic, sadistic, or masochistic is no measure of what is the right thing to do. Just because someone places a value on some object or idea does not make the idea or the object moral, ethical, or that there was any integrity in the wanting itself.
Above, you spoke of: “mindset of collectivism, where an individual acts within the expectations of the group and is limited by its laws.” It may be the desired effect with an assigned “value” that folks act within expectations. But anybody that watches the news or reads newspapers can tell you that social control does not work very well where it is not monitored and enforced. Even when it is, you might expect compliance, but you would be foolish to expect commitment. Just go out to the interstate highway and watch how all the good people drive when they think the police are not looking.
In your comment, you used the word “collectivism”, and you placed a value on it. You placed a low value on it, but a value just the same. It is from an assumption of what is forced or enforced, or what compliance is required collectively that we would see it that way. But whenever a collective effort is backed by a commitment from individual members of the group, what you have is cooperation. Cooperation in and of itself is neither good nor bad, but the outcome of it can be measured, and some “value” of it will be declared. Also, if the members of a society are unwilling to cooperate with each other, the alternative is some kind of anarchy, isn’t it?
You expressed a concern by saying: “I believe the destruction of the individual in favor of the collective has created these flaws in our current society.” There is always a need to seek a balance in any culture that sets value on both liberty and equality. Our own constitution declares certain values for both, and it is certainly true that we have not reached any perfection of either. Everyone, depending on what they value, seeks to enhance their on situation up to a point. If two men agree to plant and harvest together cannot cooperate, they both run the risk of starving to death. But if one gets plenty while the other starves, the cooperation is flawed. One of them may get what they valued, but do not presume their “value” to be based on any integrity.
For the past few decades, I’ve watched the demonizing of the American Civil Liberties Union, and the conflict always seems to be associated with “values” of one group being forced on all other groups. It doesn’t matter which side of a value argument one chooses as much as it is the question of the integrity of individual liberty and at the same time, the equality under the law of all persons. I have also watched the demonizing of all organizations that use the words “union” or “collective”, while those who join together in the name of “association” are given praise and places of honor in society.
If a group of people with a common mindset gather under the name “academy” is it not likely that part of the reason for so gathering is to enhance the benefits of those who are members? Does not the American Medical Association collectively bargain on behalf of its members, and on behalf of corporations that hire its members? Some feel it is right, and morally right for them to do so, but it is wrong and morally wrong for truck drivers to become members of the Teamster’s Union. It doesn’t matter what you opinion is of either union, but instead the question is why is there a disparity between who is allowed to collectively bargain for benefit, and who is not?
There are many fraternities, sororities, clubs, benevolent societies, brother & sisterhoods, professional and trade associations, trade guilds and labor unions. All of them, and without shame, claim to take an interest in the kinds of things that directly benefit the members of their group. Some of them are more obvious than others about restricting benefits to those who are not members. But stating this is not to presume anything good or bad about their “collectivism” which hopes to capitalize on the law of large numbers; it is to simply point out that they do exist.
What I would say to all groups that gather intending to strengthen the position of its individual members is this: I understand that you have values. But I ask you to to consider if what you value is ethical. Is it fair? Is it about integrity, or is it just about what you want (value)? The answers to those questions are not so much for me to decide as much as it it is for them to think about. Simply put, are all actions of the collective group subject to the same standards and principles of you as an individual within that culture? If so, fine. If not, what are you going to do about it?
I invite you to take a lecture series from Harvard University that is offered free of charge on the internet entitled Justice with Michael Sandel. There are 12 lectures in the series, so it will take you about 12 hours to view all episodes. So is a class in philosophy from Harvard worth it if the only tuition is the time it takes to see it?
http://www.justiceharvard.org/watch/
Posted by little d on November 2, 2011 at 6:50 pm
These examples and others that you have posted in this blog are typical in effect and outcome of the recording of Mans deeds through time. I, as well as are most people not totally ignorant of history, am not in the least surprised to find Mans behavior, and
interaction with others to be paradoxical in nature.
Could anyone purposely deprive a Child of food or shelter or safety if it was within their means to do so? No one comes to my mind, but there is and always has been.
Could anyone purposely deceive another for his personal gain? Sure, I could name
many that do it on a daily basis, and few haven’t been guilty of this sometime in their life span. Jokes are frequently told of how someone slyly took advantage of another.
I type this to suggest that even though Man is somewhat more aware of his nature
than he may have been thousands of years ago, he still is alone within the corridors
of his mind to justify his actions, and the consequences involved.
In a environment of savagery, he is commonly savage. In a environment of love, he is commonly loving. In a environment of lawlessness, he is commonly less lawful ect….
Sometime back I was pondering and writing a bit about this paradox, and I suspected
that what Humanity had failed to adapt for itself was one of the simplest of items, I
would think as individuals, everyone of us to some degree or another had had one or many, and most may still be advancing upon them. Goals
Can anyone name a universal goal for all Humanity? Now I realize there are populations that haven’t set any goals other than what they hope to eat today,
but have you heard one tossed around lately? Or ever?
We, as a species, unlike the domesticated and wild beast around us, have direct
influence over our destiny, we shape our world with an intelligence superior in its
effect to all other species. Perhaps our visions remain impaired of the need of
Human Goals, but what would have come of any of us had we not been inspired by
others who set and attained their goals? likely we would agree that goals were important to us at one point or another during our lives, we seldom reach all goals,
but we remain the better for targeting them, and goal oriented people are the reason we can read and write today.
I suspect it was someones goal to prevent Humanity from ever having any,
and just like that, we went for basketball, and the rest they say…is His-Story
Integrity is a business always hiring, the reason being there ain’t no pay.
You can make more money stealing pennies from the cashiers cup!!!
Who would have ever thought that a piece of stinking ink paper with a picture
of a dead man and a one eyed pyramid could buy out integrity? Prioritize.
Thanks again for your moments Van
Posted by Mickey Foster on November 2, 2011 at 7:08 pm
Van, I usually enjoy a laugh when I read your musings. I find it hard to laugh, even smile, at what continues to happen in Africa and other places. I find it difficult to smile at any sentence that contains the name Bernie Madoff, and there are many others. But, being a simple man I have a simple solution. The solution has been around for a long long time…we learned it as children, little children…treat others as you want them to treat you…would it not be a wonderful world if every person treated his fellow man the way he wants to be treated???? We are One Human Family.
Posted by maysun on November 2, 2011 at 11:38 pm
@ Mickey Foster – Sometimes people prefer not to be treated as I wish to treat myself.
@ Moliere – The virtue of kindness will only get you so far in life.
@ Van Brown – Good read. How would you compare “integrity” vs. “decency”. Are they essentially the same in your mind?
@ Little D – Far out. Hi 5
love,
Mason
http://bukk.it/kenobitime.gif
Posted by Scott Bury on November 5, 2011 at 11:32 am
Great essay. When I hear or read someone who bemoans the loss of “old-fashioned values,” I often wonder if they mean the values that stratified society according to the colour of people’s skin, allowed priests to molest children without being questioned or forced other people to work in unsafe conditions for little pay.
Posted by Lynn Sigmon Foes on February 23, 2012 at 2:32 pm
Great food for thought, Van. I value community more than collectivism; the community is divergent and many in it don’t share my values at all, but we all share life on a planet with limited resources. We all need to be loved and to give. The older I get, the more I need to be an active member in the messy notion of community. Bringing people together for the common good and practicing the Golden Rule seem to permeate all my old age activities. There’s a profound sense of joy associated with connecting with others to strengthen our town, whether it’s working with my “book club” for struggling readers who hear only Spanish at home, building ramps with a Heart and Hammer project, or simply sharing the load of caregiving with neighbors who, like me, deal with a parent’s Alzheimers pain. I can’t claim integrity because I clearly recognize that I benefit far more than I give, but perhaps integrity begins to grow in settings where we strive to find our common humanity.