RoR: Forum

I need some concrete examples. Two that we here all know well are "Roark and the Manhattan Bank" and "Readen and the Gift Certificate." Both are offered, at least on the surface, as you say:

In this view, an integrity that upholds obedience to your moral principles is essentially equivalent to an integrity that focuses on your best judgment. The thinking goes, if your moral principles are rational, then there's no difference. Following your moral principles is equivalent to using your best judgment. Moral principles inform your best judgment. They are an essential component. So aren't the two views identical or at least compatible in a morality of self-interest?

Can you concretize the action from the novels according to your view that integrity comes from judging what is in your material self-interest versus your moral self-interest? I understand that no contradiction between them can exist,and that is the reason why I framed it in that way, because to me, it seems that you divided them.

Post 1

Friday, April 12, 2013 - 6:35am

Supplementary thought on the issues treated in Joe's stimulating and nicely developed article can be found within Tara Smith's discussion of integrity, which is Chapter 7 of Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics. In particular, on pages 183-96, Prof. Smith discusses: right approach to reaching one's principles as itself an issue of integrity; nuances of judging that someone shows integrity to principles that are incorrect; relation of integrity to courage; and the need for clarity of vision in attaining integrity.

Post 2

Friday, April 12, 2013 - 9:27am

I see integrity as an area that is as much psychology as ethics. Nathaniel Branden has a chapter in the Six Pillars of Self-Esteem devoted to integrity as one of the pillars. For him, it is the correspondence between belief and action, and that one's self-esteem automatically, and inexorably goes up or down with the practice, or failure to practice integrity.

I agree with Nathaniel's take, but I think it runs deeper than that. Where Stephen mentions Tara Smith's position that the, "right approach to reaching one's principles is itself an issue of integrity" is, to me, the core of integrity. The heart of integrity is in the way choices are made.

We must make choices constantly - tiny ones, and on occasion, major decisions. There is a moral context a great deal of the time, even with tiny decisions. For example, a show comes on TV just after the news that seems interesting, but I had decided that after the news I was going to do some chores. The chores can be put off. But there may be an issue to be settled in the fraction of a second before which I either turn the TV off or settle in to watch the show... an issue of "am I starting to procrastinate?" Integrity, in that instant, is not evading or rationalizing regarding that question. This might become an issue of self-acceptance: "Yes, I've been getting lazier, and there is some of that in wanting to avoid the chores." And finally, given this, "should I watch the show?" My job is to be on my side in this question - not denying myself the pleasure of the show without good reason on one hand, and not accepting defensive urges as if they were reasons on the other hand - balancing the short term pleasures that are an important part of life with the on-going maintaining of character - of who I am, and who I want to remain. All of these are purely mental acts - acts of willing an openness to issues, actively using logic to keep to the context, identifying any defenses and then choosing the action.

Stephen's post mentions Tara Smith's discussion of "the need for clarity of vision in attaining integrity." Another of Branden's pillars of self-esteem that comes to mind is the practice of living consciously. The distinction here is similar to above. There is a choice to be made. It is between following an urge that is formed mostly of defensive motivation, or laziness, for example, versus willing the mind to focus rationally on the issues, including identifying the motivations. This mental process when one focuses is an act of living consciously, but it is also an act of integrity because no one will ever do this on a regular basis but that they hold the value of being honest with themselves. In that sense, I'd concur that clarity of vision is needed to attain integrity, and that there is a modicum of integrity needed to initiate the process of seeking clarity.

I like Joe's distinction in how morals can be held as "moral policy" versus "moral principle." But I don't see it as tightly linked to integrity. One person might have acquired their understanding of how to be a moral person such that they have policies. If there was no evasion in the acquiring of that method of processing morality, and if there is no evasion in the practice of the policies, then they will reap the rewards of high integrity - even though that isn't the best way to hold or practice morality. My father's generation was raised to see morality this way. It was omnipresent in the world he grew up in. He was a man of high integrity because he practiced his morality without evasion and as best as one could practice a morality that contained some contradictions, and lacked in clarity.

On the other hand, there are some people who gave in to fear, or shame, or guilt, or anxiety in the choices used in forming their way of addressing morality - they developed a set of moral policies that they use to protect themselves from fears. As long as they use that practice to evade an emotion, or to evade knowledge that might generate a fear, it is a failure of integrity. There are some principles that might remain unstated and never be held explicitly by a person, yet remain a principle. Awareness is such a value. We all hold it as a value, even if we don't hold it explicitly. We can't avoid that by our nature. It may never enter our conscious minds as a value, but it can't be taken from our subconscious. There is a part of us that will always know that we are living consciously or not.

Actively thwarting awareness in a moment with evasion or rationalization is a failure of integrity.

When morality is acquired and practiced in a more individual-centered fashion and when each principle is held and practiced more as the best benefit of the self, and not as a duty to an external morality, then there will be more inner power and higher self-esteem. But not so much from integrity, but from a different pillar: Self-assertion - the practice of putting more of one's self into life. We can imagine the difference in the richness of life for someone who follows their own passions in their career choices, versus someone who as an employee has to follow, to a degree, passions that belong more to their boss than to themselves. There should be a degree of that difference in following one's own moral principles versus getting lined up behind a set of morals adopted from the outside as policies to be followed.

(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 4/12, 6:50pm)

Post 3

Sunday, April 14, 2013 - 1:09am

Michael, I do not recognize the phrase "material self-interest vs. moral self-interest", and do not accept it as an even approximate description of what I said in the article. The distinction I made was between understanding and obedience. There are those who choose their actions based on an understanding of the likely consequences, and there are those who obey a pre-defined moral policy regardless of the merits.

Honesty is a simple example. Some people choose to be honest because "it's the moral thing to do". Which means they are obeying a rule. Others will be honest because they recognize the value in the truth and will focus on the likely consequence.

For example, a loved one might cook you a dinner that you don't like. One person might tell truth because he wants to be moral, and his morality tells him to be honest. He might have some abstract reasons for believing honesty is good and that the moral policy is better than other potential policies, but the choice to act is based on conformity to the policy.

In contrast, a different person might take those abstract principles (understanding) and apply them to this case. He may think that if he miscommunicates his reaction to the food, the person cooking may decide that he likes that food and cook it again. He may think think that he'll suffer through many more instances of it. He'll know that while the other person want to make him happy, his miscommunication will prevent her from succeeding and will translate her considerate desires into unpleasant results.

If there is a distinction between self-interest and morality, it is not one that I have created. It is one that is created by the act of severing actions from goals/consequences. It happens when someone attempts to make morality into a system of rules instead of a method of understanding. The usual Objectivist defense is that there is no distinction between morality and self-interest. My reply is that while there should be no distinction, the way you conceive of and practice your morality can create such a divide.

Steve, I do think the moral principle vs. moral policy has a substantial impact on integrity, and in a way that I would expect you in particular to appreciate given your focus on the psychological aspects of integrity.

Consider the person who views integrity as simply a consist obedience to a moral policy. For him, integrity comes in the form of stoically resisting temptation. He must summon the willpower to resist temptations. In contrast, the one who uses principles to reflect on the real costs and benefits will resist temptation by seeing the downside and putting it into perspective.

Does the former come to see morality as a sacrifice? Doesn't he wage war against his own desires and emotions? And doesn't his emotions turn on his moral code and maybe even himself for having those temptations? Whereas the latter would view morality as his savior and see how it leads him to clarity and better choices. He'd see the temptations not as a sinful nature, but as a value inappropriately viewed in isolation, but when the larger context is applied, it stops having such an emotional pull.

I think there is another difference. The man who obeys the moral policies becomes focused on the policies themselves. The policies become the moral criteria, and they become a goal in themselves. You act morally in order to be moral. Whereas the man who utilizes principles to bring clarity to his evaluations will continue to focus on the consequences to his own life. His choices will be based on how they impact his life, and not compared to an intermediary criterion. In his case, morality is simply the method of focusing on his own life and seeing values in relationship to that life. It doesn't become a separate thing.

In addition to all of this, there is the question of whether one can generate moral policies that really can substitute for a principled understanding and evaluative approach. How many policies are really universally applicable? Aren't there always contexts in which they don't apply? There's always the example of honesty when a murderer comes to your door asking where your loved ones are. On this forum, we've had plenty of arguments about "emergency situations" and the limits of individual rights. And there are always examples where your policies conflict with one another or with your interest. The policy-based approach is broken in many respects.

But the point of this article was to describe integrity in light of these two approaches to morality. As noted in the title, there are two very different views of integrity possible, based on these two approaches. They are psychologically and methodologically very different. They have different long term consequences. They make you focus on completely different things (consequences to your life vs. adherence to a moral policy).

Post 4

Sunday, April 14, 2013 - 3:17pm

Joe,

...the point of this article was to describe integrity in light of these two approaches to morality. As noted in the title, there are two very different views of integrity possible, based on these two approaches. They are psychologically and methodologically very different. They have different long term consequences. They make you focus on completely different things (consequences to your life vs. adherence to a moral policy).

I understand and agree with most of what you've written. But I still maintain that integrity exists in both of the approaches. And that it is mostly psychological. One person might hold what you refer to as the life approach, but unless they are an extremely rare individual, they will still have some unresolved conflicts and areas there they are still acting on a few policy type of morals (not having performed independent thought on all areas of their life). Think of Reardon before he stopped to examine his conflict regarding being attracted to Dagney versus being loyal to his wife. In that case integrity was being fought on two fronts at once and each was partly subconscious. The best in him was drawn to her, but he was violating a principle he held consciously. When he damned himself, or stayed away from her he was honoring a principle he'd chosen. His initial chosen principle was the 'adherence to policy' mode, his attraction motivated the thought that became your 'consequences to life' mode when he finally resolved it. I still believe it is the method used to resolve (or ignore) a conflict that has the greatest effect on integrity.

If we assume that Reardon's character was such that he would never stay in a conflicted state long-term and that he had to find a resolution, and that his resolution would have to come from his reason, and never from evasion, or rationalization, then we know that no matter what his decision, his integrity would have given his self-esteem a boost.

If we imagine that he decided that it was wrong to cheat on his wife and that his character, and his sense of who he was would never condone cheating, then his integrity would have kept his self-esteem from decreasing... but because Dagny reflected so much of his core values, and because he would be sacrificing happiness, his self-esteem and his happiness would have taken a hit. But the hit wasn't due solely to the adherence to the 'policy' style of morality.

When he chooses Dagny as the moral choice and recognizes that he had been following a 'policy' style of morality and that it was not compatible with a 'consequences of life' approach to morality, his joy and his integrity shoot up. But this only worked because it was honest reasoning, not rationalization.

Very few people are as clear in their thinking as Reardon, or have as few conflicts as he did, and few people are very aware of where many of their motivations come from. There are a lot of good people stuck, from an early age in a 'policy form of morality' and unaware of the deficiencies of that form of morality, are doing the best they can. Stoicism is often the case of a good person repressing good parts of themselves in order to say consistent with a morality that isn't as life-oriented as it should be.

No one will pick up Objectivism's morality immediately as a 'life consequences' form of morality, because initially they will view it as they have been taught to view any morality - as a policy to be obeyed. They will be thinking, "This moral policy makes much more sense."

We all start from this perspective because we were wired to learn from our parents - we started with them as our moral policy givers. They taught us to accept the moral policies of others as well (school authorities, the community, and for some, church). Eventually we 'graduated' from outsiders, even parents, giving us the moral interpretations, but we retained the policy style of thinking.

It requires a personal evolution for a person to shift from the sense of their being a set of policies to where it becomes thinking about your own life as the basis of all morality.

But the issue of integrity is always there. Regardless of context, is the person thinking instead of evading?

Post 5

Monday, April 15, 2013 - 9:34am