Integrity as a moral obligation of role models

Ethics - Role Model Integrity

INTEGRITY in PERSONAL, SOCIAL, and COMMERCIAL CONTEXT

Defining Personal Integrity:

Personal integrity is a relatively rare quality for several specific reasons: it denotes obligations that are often contrary to our natural impulses; it is more likely to complicate personal affairs than to facilitate them; it comes with no tangible reward; and it is usually somewhat out of synch with the behavior of everybody else. In the most general sense, integrity implies a consistency, or a correspondence, between one's behavioral choices and the truth, as well as with objective moral right, sometimes, even at great cost to one's own interests and welfare. Whereas individuals with personal integrity uphold their moral values privately as well as publicly, those without personal integrity conduct themselves differently and fail to uphold moral standards when there are no negative consequences to violating those values (Rosenstand, 2008).

Integrity is important simply because a society composed of individuals with higher collective integrity is more beneficial to all of its members than an otherwise similar society with lower collective integrity of its members. In the former, most people make an effort to be honest and fair and unbiased and, in general, to do the right thing in their interactions with other individuals. In the latter, most people adopt a comparatively selfish perspective and more typically employ dishonesty and unfairness and, in general, do not necessarily worry about doing the right thing except to the extent it affects their reputation in the eyes of others. In many respects, it is somewhat understandable why integrity is comparatively rare: it provides only a measure of self-respect while requiring the individual to live by a much stricter set of rules than actually "required" by law and public policy.

The Challenges of Maintaining Integrity:

The fundamental core components of integrity are: (1) a set of moral values and ethical principles and (2) a commitment to uphold those values and principles even when doing so comes at a cost to us rather than conferring any benefit. Whereas even individuals without personal integrity typically do the right thing when they are being observed (or under circumstances where their actions may be detected later), individuals with personal integrity do the right thing even when they are certain that they are not being observed (Rosenstand, 2008).

Genuine integrity also implies that the individual applies the identical values, principles, definitions, rules, obligations, and conclusions to himself as those that he believes apply to others. The person with integrity reacts with (justified) anger when, for example, another driver double parks next to his legally parked car and blocks his car from leaving; when the situation is reversed and the person with integrity faces the same parking dilemma, he does not consider doing the same thing that angered him.

The person without integrity gets angry when he is on the receiving end of inconsiderate behavior, but instead of refraining from the same choice when the situation is reversed, the person without integrity does the exact same thing today that angered him yesterday when the respective roles were reversed. Typically, the individual without personal integrity simply employs rationalization and justifies his violation of the same rule, reasoning that being wronged the day before entitles him to "his turn" or by finding a way to distinguish his behavior, such as by reasoning that his errand is shorter in duration or that the legally parked driver is less likely to need to leave at this time of day or night.

Rationalization of this type is a form of self delusion and it is equally evident among groups as in individuals. In Western society, for one very ubiquitous example, males generally maintain two very different sets of moral standards for sexual behavior for the two genders. Typically, they believe that so-called "recreational" sex is consistent with low moral character in women but inconsequential in males. They may also exploit that double standard by using it as a rationalization to pursue sexual intimacy by outright deception with respect to their genuine level of romantic interest in a woman. In particular, if they believe that the woman has failed to uphold the male definition of sexual morals, such as by having casual sex with someone else previously, they may use that as their excuse to justify lying to that woman for the purpose of obtaining sexual consent by deception.

When challenged on the issue by being asked whether that rule also applies to their sister if she ever happened ever to have had a casual sexual encounter, the individual without integrity either denies the premise as a means of avoiding having to answer the question or simply states "that's different" but without offering any reasonable explanation why. Conversely, the individual with integrity understands first, that moral issues never hinge on gender and that casual sex cannot be moral for one person and immoral for another person based on gender, and second, that in any case, a woman's prior sexual history has absolutely no bearing on his obligation to be truthful in expressing his intentions.

Another illustration of integrity in large groups is evident in sentiments about racial equality. Typically, most members of minority races are much more active in and concerned about affairs that affect their racial group specifically.

While they may passively agree that all other racial minorities have the same rights and social concerns, most individuals devote their time, energy, and resources to the promotion of equality for their race rather than for all minority races equally. The individual with integrity understands that racism and inequality are equally important issues regardless of which particular group is subjected to racism and is equally committed to the advancement of all minorities rather than more to the interests of his own group.

Integrity and Commercial Advertising:

The commercial use of recognizable celebrities in connection with product advertisement represents the antithesis of integrity. In principle, celebrity product endorsements are fundamentally dishonest because the advertiser is simply exploiting various phenomena of human psychology and the impulse to identify with and emulate high-profile individuals (Belch & Belch, 1998; Howard, 2005). Celebrity product endorsements do not represent instances where a high-profile individual who actually uses a particular product receives compensation for publicizing that after the fact.

Instead, in the typical scenario, product manufacturers approach the celebrity's business representative with endorsement offers and the business representative recommends whichever offers are in the best financial and public image interests of the celebrity (Ogilvy, 1990). Any other connection between celebrity spokespeople and the products to which they sell their names is almost always completely illusory (Howard, 2005). Integrity in this context might require a celebrity to limit endorsements to products and services the individual genuinely used and appreciated before any endorsement offers or to limit his involvement to indirect association instead of outright endorsement of the product. Likewise, personal integrity would prohibit any celebrity from allowing even his name (alone) to be used to promote any product or service that he believes is immoral.