The fundamentals of moral integrity

The fundamentals of moral integrity

By Mochtar Buchori

JAKARTA (JP): In times of turmoil, hope and fear, I always
look for somebody who is dependable, conscientious and morally
courageous. I need to recognize such personalities to generate a
feeling within myself that I am not walking blindly, but that I
am following a morally correct path during a critical moment. By
following examples or opinions pronounced by such personalities I
have always hoped to have a correct and meaningful life.

Professor Stephen L. Carter of Yale Law School used the term
"integrity" to explain personalities such as this. He defined
integrity as "the courage and the willingness to act and speak on
behalf of what we know to be right". According to his analysis,
integrity can only be achieved after following these steps.
First, we should discern what is right and what is wrong, then
act on what we have discerned, even at a personal cost, and
finally we should openly state that we are acting on our
understanding of right from wrong.

This highlights the fact that a person with integrity is
always a rare species in any environment. Those who have been
brought up in a normal environment have learned from childhood to
distinguish right from wrong. But only a few among us have been
trained to act in a consistent manner on what we know about right
and wrong. And when we become adults, we learn that we have to be
very careful in saying anything about our conduct and its moral
basis.

Therefore, can integrity be taught? And can we teach our
children to become individuals with personal integrity?

Not really. We can teach our children the foundations of
integrity, but not integrity itself. According to Carter,
integrity is a journey and not a destination. Thus to achieve
integrity each one of us has to make that journey ourselves. We
cannot hire a tutor, and ask him or her to show us integrity.

This personal journey is necessary as a person is only
recognized as having integrity after they have defended a number
of principles. One has to pass a test to be recognized as a
person of integrity. The harder the test one has passed, the more
convincing his or her integrity becomes to others. And in most
cases the true test of integrity constitutes having to face
unpleasant consequences of one's conviction. Willingness to
accept such consequences, and actually going through such
unpleasant experiences constitute the ultimate proof of
integrity.

How do we teach such knowledge and dispositions to our
children? How do we explain to them that integrity is a
praiseworthy attribute, and that it makes one socially and
morally distinct? How do we teach them the basic notions of right
and wrong? And how do we explain to them that defending a
considered certitude is a noble effort, especially if one has to
stand alone in such an effort?

Schools cannot contribute significantly to the growth of
integrity among our children as long as they continue to perceive
education merely as an activity related to cognitive development.
I don't think that our schools can significantly stimulate the
growth of conscience -- which is the basis of integrity -- as
long as they remain indifferent towards the real struggle that
goes on within the society between right and wrong, good and
evil.

The foundations of integrity can be taught only by schools
which are institutionally involved in society's struggle to stop
the erosion of morality and resurrect decency. Independence in
making moral judgments constitutes a basic prerequisite for
schools to function as defender and promoter of morality. Schools
must be allowed and encouraged to be independent in making
pronouncements related to morality. It is only in this way that
schools can effectively function as agents of morality.

Without independence in moral judgments schools cannot discuss
current problems of integrity. At the moment, it is very
difficult for people to be moral because there is so much
confusion in our society concerning what is right and what is
wrong. In this time of normative confusion it is very easy for a
villain to pass as the law-abiding party, and for the victim to
be condemned as the one committing the crime.

It is a time to show our children living examples of integrity
and immorality. It is also a time we can refer to realities to
show our children how integrity is achieved or not achieved in
our society today. On the basis of these realities we can teach
that courage is needed to discern right and wrong in our daily
lives.

We can also show our children what it takes in our society
today to follow the path of right or wrong. And we can show our
children how great personalities in our society today publicly
say what is right and what is wrong in their opinion, and the
basis of their moral pronouncements.

In this way we can show our children the struggle to achieve
integrity today, and the social price of maintaining integrity.

One of the difficult things to teach is that dissent can be an
expression of moral integrity. During this time of mandatory
conformity -- or when conformity is taken for granted -- any form
of dissent is immediately branded as disloyal or even subversive.

Equally difficult to teach is the concept of fake integrity or
a false notion of integrity arising from the failure to
differentiate good principles from evil ones.

A person who consistently advocates and defends a set of evil
principles may thus claim to be a person of integrity.
Consistency in maintaining oppressive regulations can also be
defended as an act of integrity.

Thus it is only when the ethical basis of a set of principles
are made explicit that we can judge whether rejecting or
defending those principles should be considered as an act of
integrity or an act of deceit.

The writer is an observer of social and cultural affairs.