What is the integrity?
As a holistic concept, it judges the quality of a system in terms of its ability to achieve its own goals. A value system's abstraction depth and range of applicable interaction may also function as significant factors in identifying integrity due to their congruence or lack of congruence with empirical observation. A value system may evolve over time while retaining integrity if those who espouse the values account for and resolve inconsistencies.
Integrity may be seen as the quality of having a sense of honesty and truthfulness in regard to the motivations for one's actions. The term "hypocrisy" is used in contrast to integrity for asserting that one part of a value system demonstrably conflicts with another, and to demand that the parties holding apparently conflicting values account for the discrepancy or change their beliefs to improve internal consistency.
Integrity may be seen as the quality of having a sense of honesty and truthfulness in regard to the motivations for one's actions. The term "hypocrisy" is used in contrast to integrity for asserting that one part of a value system demonstrably conflicts with another, and to demand that the parties holding apparently conflicting values account for the discrepancy or change their beliefs to improve internal consistency.
Contents :
1.1 Integrity in relation to value systems
1.2 Testing theories via the Scientific Method
2 Integrity in ethics
2.1 Popular views of integrity
2.2 Integrity in modern ethics
2.3 Law
2.4 Ethical integrity as measured by psychological/work-selection tests
Testing of integrity
One can test a value system's accountability either:
subjectively, by a person's individual measures or
objectively, via the Scientific Method or standardized mathematical measure
Integrity in relation to value systems
A value consists of an assumption from which one can extrapolate implementation or other values. A value system comprises a set of consistent values and measures. The Scientific Method assumes that a system with perfect integrity yields a singular hypothetical extrapolation that one can test against observed results.
Testing theories via the Scientific Method
Formal measures of integrity rely on a set of testing principles known as the Scientific Method. To the extent that a proof follows the requirements of the method, scholars consider that proof scientific. The Scientific Method include measures to ensure unbiased testing and a requirement that the hypothesis have falsifiability.
One tests the integrity of a value system scientifically by using the values, methods and measures of the system to formulate a hypothesis of an expected cause-and-effect relationship. When the cause creates the expected effect consistently amongst multiple unbiased testers, the value system is said to have integrity.
For example, Newtonian physics, general relativity and quantum mechanics are three distinct systems, each scientifically proven to have integrity according to their base assumptions and measures. None of them claim to be absolute truth. Scientific testing is not useful for identifying "absolute truth" because scientific tests assume principles, values, methods and measures outside of the scope of the test. Rather, the Scientific Method is used to proof the integrity of a value system and to establish its conclusions as consistent with the assumptions used, thereby enabling further extrapolation within that domain.
Integrity in ethics
In discussions on behavior and morality, one view of the property of integrity sees it as the virtue of basing actions on an internally-consistent framework of principles. This scenario may emphasize depth of principles and adherence of each level to the next.[citation needed] One can describe a person as having integrity to the extent that everything that that person does or believes: actions, methods, measures and principles — all derive from the same core group of values.
In the context of accountability, integrity measures consistency between one's actions and one's principles and methods used when an expected result appears incongruent with observed outcome. Some[who?] regard integrity as a virtue in that they see accountability and moral responsibility as necessary tools for maintaining such consistency.
In the context of value theory, integrity provides the expected causation from a base value[citation needed] to its extrapolated implementation or other values. A value system emerges as a set of values and measures that one can observe as consistent with expectations.
Some commentators stress the idea of integrity as personal honesty: acting according to one's beliefs and values at all times. Speaking about integrity can emphasize the "wholeness" or "intactness" of a moral stance or attitude. Some views of wholeness may also emphasize commitment and authenticity.
The etymology of the word "integrity" stems from the Latin adjective integer (whole, complete). In this context, integrity may comprise the personal inner sense of "wholeness" deriving from (say) honesty and consistency of character. As such, one can judge that other "have integrity" to the extent that one judges whether they behave according to the values, beliefs and principles they claim to hold.
Popular views of integrity
Many people appear to use the word "integrity" in a vague manner as an alternative to the perceived political incorrectness of using blatantly moralistic terms such as "good" or ethical. In this sense the term often refers to a refusal to engage in lying, blaming or other behavior generally seeming to evade accountability.
Popular discussions of integrity often see the concept as an all-or-nothing affair: one describes an approved person as "having integrity" (as an absolute), but condemns an enemy or a collective enemy organization as "completely lacking in integrity".
English-speakers may measure integrity in non-enumerated units called "scraps", speaking of preserving one's "last scraps of integrity" or having "not a scrap of integrity". This may imply that integrity in such situations can appear brittle or fragile — and apt to tarnish or decay.
Integrity in modern ethics
In a formal study of the term "integrity" and its meaning in modern ethics, law professor Stephen L. Carter sees integrity not only as a refusal to engage in behavior that evades responsibility[citation needed], but as an understanding of different modes or styles in which some discourse takes place, and which aims at the discovery of some truth[citation needed].
Carter writes:
Integrity [...] requires three steps: (1) discerning what is right and what is wrong; (2) acting on what you have discerned, even at personal cost; and (3) saying openly that you are acting on your understanding of right from wrong.[...] Integrity [...] is not the same as honesty [...][1]
Law
An adversarial process can have general integrity when both sides demonstrate willingness to share evidence, follow guidelines of debate and accept rulings from an arbitrator in a good-faith effort to arrive at either the truth or a mutually equitable outcome. An honorable presentation of the case measures both sides of the argument with a consistent set of principles. Failure to present principles in accordance with observation or to try them unequally can weaken a case.
Ethical integrity as measured by psychological/work-selection tests
Integrity (honesty) tests aim to identify which persons or wiki editors may hide perceived negative or derogatory events from their past or the past of a favored political figure(such as doing prison time, getting psychiatric treatment, alcohol problems, etc.) and to identify to a prospective employer likely causes of strife. These tests make certain assumptions, namely[2] that such persons report more dishonest behavior, they try to find reasons in order to justify such behavior, they think others more likely to commit crimes (like theft, for example), they exhibit impulsive behavior and tend to think that society should severely punish deviant behavior.
The pretension of such tests to detect fake answers plays a crucial role in this respect, because the naive really believe such outright lies and behave accordingly, reporting their past deviance because they fear that otherwise their answers will reveal it. The more Pollyannaish the answers, the higher the integrity score.[3]
“Integrity can be compared to a great smoothie. It consists of many healthy and tasteful virtues such as discernment, loyalty, courage, honesty, and humility all mixed together to form one outstanding quality. Not only is it rewarding in the end, but the act of striving for it is well worth the effort.” (P. Wagenbach)
In discussions on behavior and morality, one view of the property of integrity sees it as the virtue of basing actions on an internally-consistent framework of principles. This scenario may emphasize depth of principles and adherence of each level to the next.[citation needed] One can describe a person as having integrity to the extent that everything that that person does or believes: actions, methods, measures and principles — all derive from the same core group of values.
In the context of accountability, integrity measures consistency between one's actions and one's principles and methods used when an expected result appears incongruent with observed outcome. Some[who?] regard integrity as a virtue in that they see accountability and moral responsibility as necessary tools for maintaining such consistency.
In the context of value theory, integrity provides the expected causation from a base value[citation needed] to its extrapolated implementation or other values. A value system emerges as a set of values and measures that one can observe as consistent with expectations.
Some commentators stress the idea of integrity as personal honesty: acting according to one's beliefs and values at all times. Speaking about integrity can emphasize the "wholeness" or "intactness" of a moral stance or attitude. Some views of wholeness may also emphasize commitment and authenticity.
The etymology of the word "integrity" stems from the Latin adjective integer (whole, complete). In this context, integrity may comprise the personal inner sense of "wholeness" deriving from (say) honesty and consistency of character. As such, one can judge that other "have integrity" to the extent that one judges whether they behave according to the values, beliefs and principles they claim to hold.
Popular views of integrity
Many people appear to use the word "integrity" in a vague manner as an alternative to the perceived political incorrectness of using blatantly moralistic terms such as "good" or ethical. In this sense the term often refers to a refusal to engage in lying, blaming or other behavior generally seeming to evade accountability.
Popular discussions of integrity often see the concept as an all-or-nothing affair: one describes an approved person as "having integrity" (as an absolute), but condemns an enemy or a collective enemy organization as "completely lacking in integrity".
English-speakers may measure integrity in non-enumerated units called "scraps", speaking of preserving one's "last scraps of integrity" or having "not a scrap of integrity". This may imply that integrity in such situations can appear brittle or fragile — and apt to tarnish or decay.
Integrity in modern ethics
In a formal study of the term "integrity" and its meaning in modern ethics, law professor Stephen L. Carter sees integrity not only as a refusal to engage in behavior that evades responsibility[citation needed], but as an understanding of different modes or styles in which some discourse takes place, and which aims at the discovery of some truth[citation needed].
Carter writes:
Integrity [...] requires three steps: (1) discerning what is right and what is wrong; (2) acting on what you have discerned, even at personal cost; and (3) saying openly that you are acting on your understanding of right from wrong.[...] Integrity [...] is not the same as honesty [...][1]
Law
An adversarial process can have general integrity when both sides demonstrate willingness to share evidence, follow guidelines of debate and accept rulings from an arbitrator in a good-faith effort to arrive at either the truth or a mutually equitable outcome. An honorable presentation of the case measures both sides of the argument with a consistent set of principles. Failure to present principles in accordance with observation or to try them unequally can weaken a case.
Ethical integrity as measured by psychological/work-selection tests
Integrity (honesty) tests aim to identify which persons or wiki editors may hide perceived negative or derogatory events from their past or the past of a favored political figure(such as doing prison time, getting psychiatric treatment, alcohol problems, etc.) and to identify to a prospective employer likely causes of strife. These tests make certain assumptions, namely[2] that such persons report more dishonest behavior, they try to find reasons in order to justify such behavior, they think others more likely to commit crimes (like theft, for example), they exhibit impulsive behavior and tend to think that society should severely punish deviant behavior.
The pretension of such tests to detect fake answers plays a crucial role in this respect, because the naive really believe such outright lies and behave accordingly, reporting their past deviance because they fear that otherwise their answers will reveal it. The more Pollyannaish the answers, the higher the integrity score.[3]
“Integrity can be compared to a great smoothie. It consists of many healthy and tasteful virtues such as discernment, loyalty, courage, honesty, and humility all mixed together to form one outstanding quality. Not only is it rewarding in the end, but the act of striving for it is well worth the effort.” (P. Wagenbach)
No comments:
Post a Comment