If integrity is a firm adherence to a moral code of values then it seems to me that people either have it or they don’t. How can you adhere firmly to something sometimes and under certain situations and at other decide to check your moral code at the door because it is inconvenient at that moment? I have a difficult time understanding how some people try to justify compartmentalized situations under which tossing aside the things for which we would ordinarily stand for in a “normal” setting. Circumstances like business deals, sports games, reality TV shows, test taking in school and a host of other areas tempt people into sacrificing their integrity because the people involved do not really matter in the long run, no one really knows us, or there is some kind of pay off that makes it worth it (or so it would seem).
For example, some who participate in reality TV shows like Survivor and Big Brother are notorious for proudly claiming to be one way outside of the game and another way in the game. They have a “game on” attitude and have checked their integrity at the starting gate . . . and it appears that all it took was some money to sacrifice their character and integrity in front of millions of people. Perhaps when they weighed the pros and cons of making such a decision, they knew that for many people the lack of a person’s integrity is meaningless unless it affects them directly. The American public seems to love a villain…ratings show that. But, the people playing the game do get offended by their fellow player’s lack of integrity (because it has a direct impact on them) and I always have found that amusing because those most offended are usually those equally lacking in integrity yet they fail to recognize the deficiency in themselves. When I was in high school, a teacher once said, “be careful when you point a finger at someone because there are always three fingers pointing back at you.” I have never forgotten that and although I fail at times, I try to use it as a pre-assessment tool before I form and opinion, judge, or speak up about an issue. Of importance to remember is that no one will question your integrity if your integrity is not questionable.
However, when making a decision to stand firm in our convictions or not to…considering whether it affects other people, whether the people involved really matter in the long run, whether other people really know us, or if is some kind of pay off that makes it worth it…none of those things should not play a role at all in that decision. Why? Because every day for the rest of your life, the one person you have to answer to is yourself. Charles Evan Hughes was a wise man when he said, “A man has to live with himself, and he should see to it that he always has good company.” No matter what other people think or say, you will still have your own conscience to deal with and depending on the significance of the conviction, the burden that compromising your convictions could carry might be heavy to carry for quite some time and the people that might be hurt might be hurt a bit worse that you thought. It all boils down to this…an ongoing battle of self-interest verses conscience. Robert Brault warns us to “Be careful of selfish motives. You can mistake them for principles and end up dying for them.”
Recently, I had an experience in a Facebook game that I play. Within the game, players form an alliance of approximately 100 players. One leader of my alliance made outrageous anti-Semitic remarks in the game’s chat and at that, I decided I was done being in that alliance. I was not going to align myself with a bigot. Several other players in the alliance (even one who is Jewish) have stayed in that alliance because “it is just a game”. I think their interpretation is that how I played things out following that episode led me to sacrifice a spot in the top alliance for my convictions and that was bad strategy in the game. So to them, game takes precedence over convictions. As Aristotle points out yet those players fail to realize at this point, “Dignity consists not in possessing honors, but in the consciousness that we deserve them.”
Therefore in my mind’s eye, convictions super-cede the game. I am still playing the game. I am aligned with my friend to whom those remarks were made and I am happy in my new alliance. I can be comfortable in my skin knowing that I am not in an alliance with a bigot and that my friends (especially the one who mattered most to me in this incident) see what my character is made of because to me that is more important than the game . I cannot personally fathom the concept of game over convictions especially when it comes to big issues…and to me bigotry is a big issue even if no one in that game really knows me…I know me…I have to live with me and I am important enough for me to do the right thing. “Before I can live with other folks I've got to live with myself. The one thing that doesn't abide by majority rule is a person's conscience.” (Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird).
John D. MacDonald states that “Integrity is not a conditional word. It does not blow in the wind or change with the weather.” You either firmly believe in your values or convictions or you don’t. It often takes courage to do the right thing especially when it means making some sort of other sacrifice whether it is fame, money, a grade, a job, a promotion, an award, status, and even other friends. It may take even greater courage when standing firm in your convictions means going against some form of group or a person in an authority position or popular opinion. We become more courageous when we put practice courage. We become more cowardly when we practice cowardice. It is when we are being tested that we can choose whether to become courageous in our convictions or a coward to our self-interest.
A final thought…
Chinua Achebe (Nigerian Writer of 'Things Fall Apart' (1959)) said, “One of the truest tests of integrity is its blunt refusal to be compromised.”
Blunt refusal. Not blunt refusal except when…
No comments:
Post a Comment