![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
plonqI had a minor disagreement with somebody today on what constituted integrity.
He had posted an inspirational list of what he thought were worthy traits, with a little explanation of what each trait entailed. Under the trait of integrity he said, "Be unwavering in your beliefs." He went on to expand on that statement with examples of it, but for all his good intentions, I felt that he had set himself in the wrong direction right from the outset.
I explained it as follows:
He replied to me that his interpretation of integrity was "what integrity means to me".
He defended his view on what it meant, arguing that he believed in being honest and morally upright, so steadfastly adhering to that belief meant that he had integrity. Ergo, the definition of integrity was to steadfastly hold to your beliefs.
I did not bother to pursue the discussion at that point since I have better things to do with my day (like drink bourbon and post about it here). It gave me pause though.
I wonder how widespread his misconception of integrity is? If people think that being unwavering in their beliefs puts them on the moral high ground, that goes a long way to explaining a lot of our societal ills. Regarding ones stubborn adherence to a belief, even in the face of truth and reason, is an unhealthy precedent. It treats intellectual dishonesty as a virtue. It's no wonder our society finds it so hard to engage in rational discourse when people believe that clinging to their misconceptions makes them better than you or me.
He had posted an inspirational list of what he thought were worthy traits, with a little explanation of what each trait entailed. Under the trait of integrity he said, "Be unwavering in your beliefs." He went on to expand on that statement with examples of it, but for all his good intentions, I felt that he had set himself in the wrong direction right from the outset.
I explained it as follows:
"Integrity
Be unwavering in your beliefs."
This is the opposite of integrity; this is dogma.
Integrity is about being honest, and maintaining moral uprightness. It is not about clinging stubbornly to beliefs. A person of true integrity will openly challenge their own beliefs, and will not shy from others challenging the same. If the beliefs cannot stand up to rational questioning, then perhaps they are not worth holding.
A person of true integrity has the honesty to admit when they are wrong.
He replied to me that his interpretation of integrity was "what integrity means to me".
He defended his view on what it meant, arguing that he believed in being honest and morally upright, so steadfastly adhering to that belief meant that he had integrity. Ergo, the definition of integrity was to steadfastly hold to your beliefs.
I did not bother to pursue the discussion at that point since I have better things to do with my day (like drink bourbon and post about it here). It gave me pause though.
I wonder how widespread his misconception of integrity is? If people think that being unwavering in their beliefs puts them on the moral high ground, that goes a long way to explaining a lot of our societal ills. Regarding ones stubborn adherence to a belief, even in the face of truth and reason, is an unhealthy precedent. It treats intellectual dishonesty as a virtue. It's no wonder our society finds it so hard to engage in rational discourse when people believe that clinging to their misconceptions makes them better than you or me.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2014-07-22 06:32 pm (UTC)It's no wonder our society finds it so hard to engage in rational discourse when people believe that clinging to their misconceptions makes them better than you or me.
I think it has to do with people hitting rock bottom, then finding religion. It is more than just a cliche that people are at their lowest point when they convert or have a religious experience. It is probably a necessary precondition for one to become truly religious. And they fear going back to that lowest point should they ever give that religion up. That fear may be what motivates them.
no subject
Date: 2014-07-24 08:20 pm (UTC)This is the general flow of a living language. We're using a bunch of words wrong, and I'm forced to pronounce certain words wrong (like 'tissue') lest I sound like an old British woman.
I've mentioned before how I've seen the word 'creepy' changing. I grew up with it as a kind of euphemism that implies someone creeps through the shadows to remain unseen. One degree of separation, I guess. Someone who is creepy was someone who resembled something that would creep, and thus obviously didn't have good intentions.
Nowadays, there's another layer of abstraction. A 'creep' would be that aforementioned creepy person, and so 'creepy' now means that you're doing things that resemble the kinds of things that person would do. It's often used to call out people sharing Too Much Information or being overtly sexual.
"I touch myself while thinking of you."
"Ew! Don't be creepy!"
Somewhere else, I saw something about 'channeling'. Like, "Wow, she was really channeling Martha Stewart while redecorating our house!" It meant someone appeared to be possessed by a certain soul, but apparently now people think it means something else, like pretending to be someone, or something stupid like that.