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.