Integrity and the Pursuit of Rules
In Lynne McFall’s writing of “Integrity,” she argues that integrity is a personal virtue of great importance to a person regardless of the approval of others. Aside from what others may approve of in the actual principles held, McFall states that the principles must be considered of great importance to that person by others. In the context of proper ethical conduct, personal integrity can indicate actual proper ethical conduct. A person without McFall’s view of integrity can not be expected to conduct themselves in an ethical manner.
McFall writes “Integrity is a personal virtue granted with social strings attached. By definition, it precludes ‘expediency, artificiality, or shallowness of any kind.’” (p. 327). The statement can be broken into three parts: first, what McFall considers to be personal integrity; second, that the personal integrity is granted with social strings; and third, the preclusions to integrity.
McFall argues that personal integrity is having a set of principles or commitments in the face of temptation or challenge, and upholding those principles or commitments for the right reasons(326). While integrity is a personal virtue which anyone can dictate and decide, regardless of anyone’s approval of those values, McFall explains that it is subject to what a reasonable person would consider of great importance, the strings attached (327). A person can hold values that are contrary to what someone else may agree with, but the importance to that person is the key if a reasonable person would believe them to be of a great importance. McFall uses the example of the connoisseur deciding between a glass of Montrachet or Mountain Dew. The connoisseur is described as having great temptation in desiring the Mountain Dew, but overcomes the temptation and ultimately goes with the wine. While the connoisseur is tempted greatly, it fails McFall’s test of integrity in that wine is not a set of principles or commitments, or important at all (327). But that is not the only part about the connoisseur’s dilemma which fails at integrity.
McFall precludes certain characteristics that fail at integrity. First is shallowness, in that if a person is not willing to, or can not bear the consequences, or lacks a challenge to their principles, then integrity cannot be granted (326). Coming back to the connoisseur, to apply integrity in his temptation and overcoming of it in that example would constitute shallowness where there was no challenge according to a reasonable person. Second is artificiality, or an inflated sense of importance placed on a certain value. McFall uses, for example, a person who is in pursuit of the approval of others. This person is convinced that just because they place importance on the approval of others, they can be granted integrity based on great importance to themselves (326). But McFall argues that “a commitment to spinelessness,” or in other words, a commitment to lacking strength of character, does not excuse the fact that it’s still a commitment to lacking strength of character (326). Finally, McFall states that integrity precludes expediency. She describes a man named John, who in his pursuit for vast wealth does not let anything else, be it friends, justice, or truth, get in the way of this pursuit (326). According to McFall’s argument for what integrity is, John has a principle (the pursuit of wealth), that in the face of temptation of friendship, truth, or justice, chooses not to compromise his principle, for what he considers to be the right reason. The logic is sound and he should be granted integrity, but it fails when you consider the definition of what expediency means: something that is convenient or advantageous regardless of whether it be right or wrong. In John’s rapacious pursuit of wealth, he can make compromises when convenient in order to maintain his principle and goes against McFall’s statement of “A person who admits to having succumbed to temptation has more integrity than a person who sells out, then fixes the books,” (326-327). Taking into consideration what McFall claims to be integrity, and using the preclusions she presents, then the application of integrity can be done correctly. People at which point can say without a doubt that a person has integrity and can trust a person to stand with their convictions in face of challenge or temptation.
Michael Davis argues in “Professional Responsibility: Just Following the Rules?” that in order for a person to conduct themselves properly, they need only follow the rules set forth by their profession’s code of ethics. Davis explains that if a code of ethics is written well enough, and the rules are based on this code, then it can be safely assumed that a professional need not worry about any higher personal codes because according to Davis the “Rules set the standards of professional conduct.” (12). He additionally explains that not just any kind of rule following would suffice, but rather that an interpretative approach be taken when doing so (17). In this way, Davis would not agree with someone needing a correct personal integrity in order to perform their duties because they can just follow the rules.
Personal integrity to McFall would be a driving force in whether a person would conduct themselves accordingly. If a person whose main principle is approval of others in their profession, what is that person to do when it conflicts with their professional code of ethics or the rules? Same can be said with John from earlier who has shown that nothing will stand in his way in the pursuit of wealth. Both persons can be said to be following the rules, and interpreting them to the best of their abilities, but at the same time can be tempted to “sell out” when it is convenient, using their interpretation of the rules (327). Without McFall’s rules for integrity and their preclusions, it can be argued that no matter if they follow Davis’s argument, those people lack the integrity to perform their duties and can not be counted on to perform their duties in a proper ethical manner.
Davis also argues that the only correct way of following the rules is in an interpretative way, which is to say that a person must see the rules for how they are in that context and interpret them accordingly (18). But the interpretation requires some sort of guide in how to do so due to its subjective nature. In this case, integrity can be used as a compass or a guide in how to interpret these rules. Using their integrity as a compass allows them to make the decisions that would challenge their principles or commitments without compromising, or conducting themselves in an unethical manner. Going back to the example of John, it can be said that he is following Davis’s way of following the rules correctly by using an interpretive approach to them. But as we discussed earlier, John lets nothing stand in the way of his amassment of wealth. So, should the rules at some point conflict with his goal, it can be assumed he would interpret them accordingly in such a way that it works the same way with his lack of integrity. In this case, integrity can be used as a marker to indicate if someone would follow the rules according to how Davis believes they should be.
In conclusion, McFall describes in detail what integrity is, which is having a set of principles or commitments in the face of temptation or challenge, and upholding those principles or commitments for the right reasons, precluding any principles or commitments which are shallow, artificial, or expedient. In the context of proper ethical conduct, it is proven to be correct, and even better, when compared with Davis’s way of what would be proper ethical conduct which is just following the rules in an interpretive manner as the bare minimum. Integrity as a personal virtue, when used and applied correctly can indicate proper ethical conduct, even when just following the rules.
Works Cited
Davis, Michael. “Professional Responsibility: Just Following the Rules?” Ethics Across the Professions, edited by Clancy Martin, Wayne Vaught, and Robert C. Solomon. Oxford University Press, 2017, pp. 12-19.
McFall, Lynne. “Integrity” Ethics Across the Professions, edited by Clancy Martin, Wayne Vaught, and Robert C. Solomon. Oxford University Press, 2017, pp. 325-328.
Ss68
SampleMidtermPaper1.docx
0
