In many of my workshops I ask the participants to think of the most ethical person they know. I then ask them to indicate what special characteristics they associate with their ethical paragon. If I let the exercise go long enough, ideas reflecting all six core ethical values are raised. But what I usually hear within the first thirty seconds is the equivalent of: “You can trust him,” “she is totally honest,” “you always know where he stands,” “she has integrity,” “when he says he’ll do something, I can take it to the bank.” These phrases describe some facets of the crown jewel of personal ethics: trustworthiness. To be worthy of trust is among the highest achievements of a good life.
Trust is a tricky notion. It is a state of mind reflecting confidence in the character and integrity of another. Sometimes we are fooled and we trust people we shouldn’t. Sometimes we distrust people we should trust.
A highly scrupulous politician (this is not an oxymoron) was once challenged by a friend: “You are so careful to avoid even appearances of impropriety, but do you really expect that this will prevent others from criticizing your integrity?” The politician answered, “No, but at least I will know that I am unworthy of the criticism.”
The moral duty enshrined by the concept of trust is not to be trusted by another (that is someone else’s decision) or to trust another (although this act of faith is often critical to meaningful intimate relationships). Rather, the ethical obligation is to live one’s life so as to be worthy of trust.
Entrustment
In our ongoing business affairs, serious friendships, and our intimate love relationships, we seek people we can trust. Why? Because in the absence of trust, we must constantly be on the lookout for the possibility that those we are dealing with are trying to take advantage of us for their own benefit. The world is full of duplicity, undependability, and insincerity. If there is no trust, we must be on guard.
The problem is that the defense mechanisms that safeguard us from others also separate us from others. We may feel safe behind a barricade of caution and cynicism, but we are unlikely to be fulfilled. Meaningful human connection requires trust. Friendship and love thrive on exchanged vulnerabilities. The ability to take off our masks and drop our shields, to invite people to get to know us without fearing that they will use what they discover to hurt us, adds a vital dimension to a relationship. Some call that dimension intimacy. Without intimacy, relationships are hollow.
Like many things of great value, entrustment can sometimes exact a high cost in the form of betrayal. Since we are exceptionally vulnerable to those we trust, the injury from betrayal, in both material and psychic terms, can be enormous. Misplaced trust inevitably causes us great pain. The question becomes, is it worth the risk?
Trustworthiness
The other side of trust is being trusted. We are trusted only when others think us worthy of their trust. There are practical advantages and emotional rewards to being trusted that provide incentives to being trustworthy. People who trust us give us greater leeway because they don’t need rules and contracts to assure that we will meet our obligations. They believe in us and therefore they believe us, even if what we say is inconsistent with the statements of others and even if what we tell them seems implausible. Being trusted is also emotionally satisfying. It increases our self-esteem and validates our good character. In professional affairs trust is a valuable asset, but in intimate personal relationships it is indispensable. The downside of being trusted is that we must constantly live up to the expectations of others and refrain from competitive self-serving behavior that we could get by with in arm’s-length relationships. Relationships built on trust impose significant moral obligations that go well beyond those associated with casual relationships.
Trustworthiness involves four major qualities: integrity, honesty, promise-keeping, and loyalty. Each of these qualities yields principles that tell us how a trustworthy person behaves.
Integrity
Invariably, people who are highly trusted are believed to have unshakable integrity. The term is used in many different ways. In some contexts, it is a synonym for ethics or character. In this sense, it embraces all the other ethical principles (as when we say that a person or company has great integrity). Integrity is also frequently used interchangeably with honesty. The problem is that if we use the term in these ways we deprive the concept of its unique meaning. Integrity needs and deserves its very own domain.
There are four components to integrity: personal convictions (what we believe), stated values (what we say we believe), operational values (what we actually do), and ethical principles (what we should do). Integrity is a quality of character demonstrated by the moral commitment and courage necessary to maintain consistency between what we believe, what we say, what we do, and what we are morally obliged to do.
A critical aspect of integrity, then, is the idea of a moral wholeness, or oneness, demonstrated by a consistency of thoughts, words, deeds, and duties. The word integrity, in fact, comes from the Latin “integer,” meaning “whole.”
A venerated diplomat, was asked how he was able to maintain his integrity in the world of international relations where duplicity, deception, and outright lying were so common. He answered that integrity requires one to live according to principle. He had no trouble doing that, he said, because in politics the primary principle is expediency. This verbal manipulation won’t do. People of integrity are trustworthy because they base their decisions on moral and ethical principles, not on expediency. They elevate convictions about right and wrong over self-interest, and they resist the impulse to recast their principles simply to achieve a result they want.
Though living up to one’s personal values is an important aspect of integrity, it is not enough. If it were, some pretty disreputable people could qualify. A person of integrity must also honor universal moral values. Integrity as we have come to use the term, has a moral dimension, that includes, but goes beyond, being true to oneself. When used in a moral sense, integrity has an objective dimension that requires us to have values worthy of a person of good character.
Courage. Integrity often requires courage. Courage is a firmness of spirit that enables us to try things, to accept challenges, to persevere, and to overcome fears that could prevent us from doing what we should do. There are two types of courage. Physical courage refers to the willingness to risk personal injury. It is commonly associated with acts of bravery and valor in order to defend or help others or to advance a noble cause. Moral courage refers to the psychological strength to resist pressures and hold onto important values even in the face of criticism, possible embarrassment, and other nonphysical harm, such as being unpopular, losing something you want (a job, an election, a relationship), or injuring your career. One aspect of moral courage is accepting defeat without losing heart. Another is standing up for our beliefs, even if we must stand alone. Courage does not mean being without fear — rashness is not a virtue. It is wise to be wary of things that can harm us. It is the essence of courage, however, to overcome fear. In fact, without conscious risk-taking, and without the attendant fear, there is no possibility of true courage, just recklessness or naiveté.
Fortitude and forbearance are related to courage. These qualities help us endure discomfort and fear so we can do what needs to be done even when it is difficult or unpleasant, or when we think we are likely to fail. Living up to principles means resisting the temptation to depart from these principles just to get us something we want or to stay out of trouble. George Washington, a man of genuine integrity, observed that “few men have the virtue to withstand the highest bidder.” In a sense, all the temptations that draw us away from our best selves are “bids” for our integrity.
Character and integrity are more often demonstrated by the way we handle day-to-day relationship questions than by heroic acts of courage.
Consider the situation of Nina, Russell, and Russell’s mother Peg. Peg was a very critical woman but she reserved her harshest criticism for her daughter-in-law, Nina. Whenever, Peg and her husband Dan came over to “visit the grandchildren” Peg relentlessly criticized the way Nina kept house, how and what she cooked and how she was raising the children. For years Nina accepted the abuse although she complained bitterly to Russell. Russell always made excuses for his mother, told Nina she was being too sensitive, and asked her just to ignore Peg’s criticisms. “As long as I love and appreciate you, what difference does it make what my mother thinks?” Nina believed in the importance of an extended family and she like Grandpa Dan very much. The children seemed to enjoy the time with their grandparents and Nina did her best but every time Peg came over it was a trauma. Russell seemed happy as long as he could avoid direct conflict even though he knew that his mother was inflicting great emotional pain on Nina. One day, Nina’s 5-year-old daughter asked, “Why does Grandma Peg always say that you are such a bad mother?” Nina barely held back the tears when she politely explained that Grandma Peg just has different ideas about what a mother should do. That night Nina was so upset she could hardly speak when Russell came home. When Russell discovered what happened he held Nina and began to cry. “I’m sorry,”, he said, “I let this go on too long.” He called his mother on the phone and told her that If she wanted to be a part of his family she would have to treat Nina with respect in every way. If she could not do that, she was no longer welcome. Peg was furious, accused Nina of being controlling and insecure, and hung up. Nina and Russell didn’t hear from Peg or Dan for three months but gradually the relationship began to thaw. When Peg “slipped” into her old habits Russell gave her a look or touched her arm to tell her she was out of bounds. Nina always treated Peg kindly. Peg may not have respected Nina, but she learned to treat her with respect. Nina’s willingness to endure abuse for the sake of her family was an act of caring and courage as was Russell’s conduct once he finally accepted responsibility.
Standing for Something. One of the reasons for the low esteem the public has for politicians is the perception that they lack integrity. Most of us admire people of principle, people who stand for something. And we distrust the end justifies the means philosophy so commonly associated with politics. The state senator who said that he was as honest as the voters “allowed” him to be was clearly unwilling to put the principle of honesty over the possibility of losing. His excuse was a cop-out. Similarly, almost all politicians say they personally detest negative campaigning and want to run a positive campaign on the issues. But they add that they can’t help it. Adlai Stevenson, the two-time unsuccessful candidate for president in the 1950s, said the problem with running for office is that it is hard to do so without proving you are unworthy of serving. Can you imagine what he would say about elections today?
Subjective Integrity. The subjective dimension of integrity relates to consistency of thoughts, words and actions. Integrity operates like a silent moral contract that obligates us to act in ways that are consistent with both what we believe and what we say we believe. Because internal integrity is based on what we value and what we say, we can expand or constrict the moral duties arising out of this implied contract by modifying either our beliefs or our verbal claims. Thus, we can change our actions to conform with our thoughts and words, or we can change our thoughts and words to conform with our actions. Either way, the realignment achieves subjective integrity.
Because integrity demands harmony between words and deeds, we must be careful with what we say. A man who tells a woman that she is the most important thing in his life creates a moral obligation to make their relationship his priority above his career and above his personal desires of the moment. If he is not prepared to do that, he ought not to have said it. Similarly, a company that says it values employee welfare had better be careful that they conduct themselves in a way that shows they mean it. It is, of course, still possible for a caring company to lay-off employees, close plants, force transfers, and engage in other acts that could injure employees but such conduct must reveal a high degree of concern for employee welfare.
Self-Reflection. Because living according to one’s dearest values is an important aspect of integrity, the capacity for self-reflection is essential. To live our values we have to be clear about what we truly believe. The more we heed the advice to “know thyself,” the more likely it is that our conscious and unconscious actions will be consistent with what we think we should do.
We have pleasure values — what we like and don’t like; pragmatic values — the kinds of conduct we think are wise or effective; and moral values — what we think is ethically right or virtuous, we can change our pleasure values at any time by just changing our minds about what we like. If we have good reasons based on experience or logic we can change our pragmatic values by forming new opinions. Moral values, however, endure as the foundation of integrity. We may change our views on personal and ideological issues such as sexual behavior or capital punishment. We are not justified, however, in rejecting universal ethical values.
Servility. Another aspect of integrity concerns insincere behavior meant to flatter or appease people who can do things for us or to us, particularly, employers, teachers, and the wealthy. When we were kids we called it “kissing-up” and the behavior was always regarded as shabby and fundamentally dishonest. There is, of course, a fine line between manipulative servility and respectful diplomacy, honest courtesy, personal charm, or tact. We should be on the lookout for that line when we are dealing with people we want to please. If we pretend to be someone we are not, we are being dishonest. If we do so in the hope of approval or advancement we demean ourselves. Ethics writer Harry Stein observes that “each act of evasion is itself evidence of the subtly degenerative process. . . . With every unfunny joke laughed at, with every liaison established primarily for ambition’s sake, one gives away a bit of soul.”
Causes of Disintegrity
There are two major reasons why well-intentioned people and, for that matter, good companies fail consistently to demonstrate integrity. First is moral weakness — the inability to muster the strength and resoluteness to overcome the temptation to depart from principle. This disintegrity (an invented antonym for integrity) can be countered by encouraging the development of moral will and courage. And to fortify this will, the rest of us should become less tolerant of such moral shortcomings and demand higher levels of commitment, courage, and vigor. The second cause is hypocrisy — professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that we do not hold or possess. This unethical practice is sometimes just a cynical and intentional manipulation. In other cases, it is simply telling people what they want to hear in a desire for approval or fear of confrontation. The remedy for hypocrisy is a higher level of moral outrage at those who disrespect us with audacious or irresponsible conduct.
Drawing the Line
The self-sacrifice and the risks entailed in doing the right thing are the dues we pay for our character. Although all of us are faced with the seductive call of temptation, some circumstances place extra pressure on our principles. Consider the street kid who has to choose between working at McDonald’s for $5 an hour or selling crack for $500 a day. The choice he should make is clear. The choice he will make reveals his character. Do we lower our expectations because he is poor and never knew his father? I hope not. It isn’t always clear where integrity comes from, but everyone, except psychopaths, has some concept of it, a line he or she won’t cross. Our personal challenge is to draw that line at the borders of the six pillars of character — and not compromise.
The cynic’s credo, “Every man has his price,” sometimes seems to be true. In talking to politicians, executives, and other working stiffs, I am regularly disturbed by their willingness to abandon principles of right and decent behavior in order to keep their jobs. It is also true, however, that almost everyone has moral limits, things that they won’t do for any price. Virtually everyone has an inner sense of decency, which sounds an alarm when some line is crossed.
Related articles
- Respect and Caring in an Uncaring World (josephsoninstitute.org)
- Responsibility (josephsoninstitute.org)
- What is Ethics? (ethicssage.com)
- Treating Everyone With Respect (josephsoninstitute.org)
- The Ground Rules of Ethics (josephsoninstitute.org)
