Integrity: Difference between revisions
m Date maintenance tags and general fixes |
|||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
'''Integrity''' comprises perceived [[consistency]] of actions, values, methods, measures and principles. Depth and breadth of a [[value system]] may also be significant factors due to their congruence with a wider range of observations{{huh?}}. A value system may evolve over time while retaining integrity if holders of that value system account for and resolve inconsistencies. |
'''Integrity''' comprises perceived [[consistency]] of actions, values, methods, measures and principles. Depth and breadth of a [[value system]] may also be significant factors due to their congruence with a wider range of observations{{huh?}}. A value system may evolve over time while retaining integrity if holders of that value system account for and resolve inconsistencies. |
||
intergrity is when you see yourself |
|||
== Testing of integrity == |
|||
One can test a value system's [[accountability]] either: |
|||
# subjectively, by a person's individual measures or |
|||
# objectively, by following mathematical or scientific methods |
|||
=== Integrity in mathematical proofs === |
|||
The [[philosophy of mathematics]] bases integrity on consistency of [[mathematical proof]], which one can test weakly or strongly, as part of the process of differentiating it from [[folk mathematics]]. Mathematical integrity becomes strengthened through definition as the result of a [[Tautology (logic)|tautology]] and where it demonstrably forms a part of a larger and consistent body of mathematics. |
|||
=== Integrity in relation to value systems, seen strictly from a philosophy-of-mathematics/philosophy-of-science perspective === |
|||
A [[value (mathematics)|value]] consists of an assumption from which one can extrapolate implementation or other values. A ''[[value system]]'' comprises a set of consistent [[value (mathematics)|values]] and measures. A system with perfect integrity yields a singular extrapolation{{Fact|date=October 2008}}, which one can test via [[scientific method]]s. |
|||
=== Testing theories via scientific methods === |
|||
The integrity of science relies on a set of testing principles known as scientific method. To the extent that a proof follows the requirements of the method, it is considered scientific. The scientific method includes measures to ensure unbiased testing and the 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 create 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, [[Classical mechanics|Newtonian physics]], [[general relativity]] and [[quantum mechanics]] exemplify three subtly distinct value systems that all produce accurate but marginally different scientific results within their respective [[domain]]s. Accordingly, scientific methods may fail to identify any [[Universality (philosophy)|absolute truth]], but serve for testing the integrity of a value system and thereby its usefulness for extrapolation within a specified domain. |
|||
== Integrity in ethics == |
== Integrity in ethics == |
||
Revision as of 18:23, 2 November 2008
Integrity comprises perceived consistency of actions, values, methods, measures and principles. Depth and breadth of a value system may also be significant factors due to their congruence with a wider range of observations[clarification needed]. A value system may evolve over time while retaining integrity if holders of that value system account for and resolve inconsistencies.
intergrity is when you see yourself
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 and form a value system.
Some[who?] regard integrity as a virtue in that they see accountability and moral responsibility as necessary tools for maintaining consistency between one's actions and one's principles, methods and measures, especially when an expected result appears incongruent with observed outcome.
Some commentators[who?] 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.[citation needed]
If we define a value as an assumption upon which to extrapolate either implementation or other values, then a value system emerges as a set of consistent values and measures. (Compare value theory.)
People allegedly "have integrity" to the extent that other people judge whether they behave according to the values, beliefs and principles they claim to hold. The etymology of the word "integrity" relates it to the Latin adjective integer (whole, complete).
Integrity can comprise the personal inner sense of "wholeness" deriving from (say) honesty and consistency of character.
Hypocrisy — which some people[who?] consider the opposite of integrity — results (according to some[who?]) when one part of a value system becomes demonstrably at odds with another and the person or group of people holding those values fails to account for the discrepancy.
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
There exists, however a more formal study of the term "integrity" and its meaning in modern ethics. Some commentators[who?] see integrity not only as a refusal to engage in behavior that evades responsibility, but as an understanding of different modes or styles in which some discourse takes place, and which aims at the discovery of some truth.
Stephen L. 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 may hide perceived negative or derogatory events from their past (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]
Other integrities
![[icon]](/wiki/File:Wiki_letter_w_cropped.svg){kind=small} | This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (May 2008) |
Disciplines and fields with an interest in integrities include philosophy of action, philosophy of medicine, the mind, cognition, consciousness, materials science, structural engineering and politics.
Popular psychology identifies personal integrity, professional integrity, artistic integrity, and intellectual integrity.
See also
External links
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry
- van Minden, Jack J.R. (2005). Alles over psychologische tests. Business Contact. pp. 206–208. ISBN 978-90-254-0415-4..
Footnotes
- ^
Carter, Stephen L (1996). Integrity. New York: BasicBooks/HarperCollins. pp. 7, 10. ISBN 0-06-092807-7.
{{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters:|origmonth=,|accessmonth=,|origdate=,|coauthors=,|month=,|chapterurl=, and|accessyear=(help) On page 242 Carter credits influence "to some extent by the fine discussion of integrity in Martin Benjamin's book Splitting the Difference: Compromise and Integrity in Ethics and Politics (Lawrence University Press of Kansas, 1990). - ^ van Minden, Jack J.R. (2005). Alles over psychologische tests (in Dutch). Business Contact. p. 207. ISBN 978-90-254-0415-4.
- ^ Compare van Minden (2005)