I've been reading on integrity, it's very important but it has to have a moral purpose for it!. For example, Hitler could have been looked at as having integrity for his belieWww@QuestionHome@Com
| Question Home |
Position:Home>Philosophy> Please give me your opinion on my ethics? You don't have to be a scholar, IQuestion: Please give me your opinion on my ethics!? You don't have to be a scholar, I just want advice is sound!? I've been reading on integrity, it's very important but it has to have a moral purpose for it!. For example, Hitler could have been looked at as having integrity for his belieWww@QuestionHome@Com
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker: Not in my translation of integrity!. Moral principals!.!.uprightness!.!.!.doing what is proper for all, not for oneself!.Www@QuestionHome@Com A sock with a hole in it has lost integrity but it is not a value judgment!. ;) Hitler would not have had any more or less integrity if he had tried to exterminate all who were not blond blue eyes - and male, for example!. It isn't a matter of degree, just as you suspect!. Hitler represents the utter lack of the integrity of consciousness - for all time it seems!. Hitler was the very most horrific representative example of an unconscious ego (religion/belief) driven sociopath!. His understanding that the binding together of a bundle of sticks under a common purpose (fascism) makes for a stronger unity, is where any perceived integrity may lie - as a structure - but the integrity or the unity of consciousness, when understood by an "individual", will simply not allow such a phenomenal consciousness as Hitler - or a Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson or many such others!. Consciousness is structural in the sense that it is unified before any perception of division!. There is no enemy - all are one!. This alone must be the basis of morality!. All else follows accordingly!. How about this then - to divide is to destroy integrity - on all perceivable levels, from sock to Hitler!. To know that there ultimately is no division is to be moral and to abide in integrity, naturally!.Www@QuestionHome@Com The golden rule is helpful, especially if you're "normal" ;) "The Path of Virtue," Jonathan Murro, has hundreds of wisdom quotes from the world's ethical traditions!. There is a parallel to logic: "integrity" more or less equals "validity," or well-constructed argument (regardless of how "true" it might be), and "morality" more or less equals "soundness," or "truth!. "Integrity" = "consistency," and therefore a person can be sincerely consistently wrong!. As you say, "truth" is "morality" is "soundness of behavior!." At that point, the absolute Truth of God is one standard, which is known by the individual's own attunement with God, Spirit, Soul!. This is also called "good character!." "Man, Master of His Destiny," O!. M!. Aivanhov, and "Soul Mates and Twin Flames," Elizabeth Clare Prophet, are examples of ethics as combined with self-realization and romance, respectively!. Two good books on ethics and morality are "The Great Divorce," C!. S!. Lewis, and "Expecting Adam," Martha Beck!.Www@QuestionHome@Com I'm not sure what your question is!. As far as your view on ethics I think you have summed it up nicely!. It's like when people say that being true to yourself is the highest good!. That only works if the truest you is also moral!. If at heart you are a stinking weasel then being true to yourself is nothing to brag about!. Ethics can also be rooted either in a standard or be situational!. This also ties into morals!. If morals are situational then are they really morals!? Www@QuestionHome@Com That's hard to say because right, wrong and integrity are always subjective concepts!.Www@QuestionHome@Com the golden rule!.Www@QuestionHome@Com |