Philosophers are having a hard time with the concept of integrity. One assumption may be that integrity is an adherence to moral values, but integrity might not necessarily conform to morality. Integrity implies a wholeness with everything intact. With that in mind, there is little flexibilty or adjustment to utilitarian principles or Kantian morality.
So does integrity have any place in the philosopher’s lexicon? If moral imperatives have motivation, what is the motivation for integrity? If it is an amalgam of ethical principles, does it have any meaning on its own?
Definitions and rules give structure to concepts, but is it possible that integrity exists without clear boundaries? Can we envisage a human being who lives by his own principles that do not conform to societal norms, and who is not motivated to do good for utilitarian reasons?
Albert Camus provokes interesting debates about the individual and life’s purpose. If, as he contends, life is meaningless but suicide is not the logical response, then some aspect of human fortitude must carry us forward. If we bundle up the desire to live a good life according to one’s own lights and the rejection of blind adherence to conventional strictures, perhaps integrity is that driving force that sustains us through human existence.
odespinner 