Of course there’s the argument of the moral nihilist that morality is a construct and none of it matters but . . . assuming that’s not true (as there are fair counterargument) what is moral? And how simplified can it become?
I think these two virtues are a good way to balance a person’s moral life. Almost every (if not every) ethical problem can be debated in the confines of these two virtues?
Panhandler-
Humility: Do you really deserve all the money you have? Can you not share a bit?
Integrity: Do you really think the panhandler will make better use of it?
Abortion-
Humility: Do you really have a right to decide the potential child’s life?
Integrity: Are you really to assume that “nature’s will” is always right, and wrongs cannot be corrected?
Life support-
Humility: Are you really the arbiter of whether the patient should die?
Integrity: Can you not think of a better use of the resources? Are you clinging to something already lost?
Let’s take your second case. Don’t you feel the need to justify “rights” in the first example and “right and wrong” in the second? Or do we just assume that rights exist and right and wrong are, what - intuitive?
I like these two-sided oppositions because things get interesting when you can pull a switcheroo.
i.e.
Humility: Do you really think your charity can substantially improve the life of the panhandler?
Integrity: I have the strength to personally make a difference in other people’s lives through love.
Humility: How can you instruct a mother whether or not to terminate fetus inside her own body?
Integrity: Regardless of our valuing civil rights and personal freedom, we stick by our belief that abortion is yucky.
Humility: Who are we to try to subdue death?
Integrity: Are you really to assume that “nature’s will” is always right, and this life cannot be prolonged (given the possibility unexpected advances in life-saving medical technology that could restore the vegetable to full health)
These are the easy switcheroos.
The better way to do a switcheroo is the way Dostoevsky does it. The more of one side of the opposition you have, the more the other. But then, this is much harder to do, because instead of having a response to each situations that simply reverses the implications of Humility and Integrity, an actual subversion of the binary would entail a response to the opposition in the form, “The Humblest Integrity says _________”.
lol, ok good point. Every alternative choice seems to have an argument each for the sake of humility and integrity. So can they really be virtues if you can choose an argument that matches contrary virtues, and use either virtue to justify contrary goals. Anything can be an act of humility or integrity, just as anything can have the ultimate goal of peace or war. Hmmmm . . . that bursts my bubble.
Faust, I think of moral justification to be the same recurring pattern for scientific justification. None of them can ever be fully justified but we go along with it anyway because we must do so in order to have some semblance of civilization.
Moral: “We should because people will die otherwise” > “It’s bad for people to die” > “People dieing is contrary to what we’re working toward” . . . etc.
Scientific: “I know because I measured it.” > “My measurements were checked several times” > “The university conducting the measurements is reputable” . . . etc
I agree with JSS. I also “…suspect that the concepts are being mis-defined…” Gg, do you define ‘humility’ as ‘submissiveness’ and ‘integrity’ as standing up for your beliefs? By ‘humility,’ do you mean going with the flow of public thought, while ‘integrity’ is, oftentimes, going against that flow?
I’m not sure I see a caveat, Sean. I also agree with JSS, I think, in that there is nothing about either humility nor integrity that necessitates the moral judgments listed. I see no logical connection between “humility” and “can I not share a bit?”
I’ve been meaning to write about integrity. Integrity is the strength of the whole. If I have to buy a pail at the hardware store, I might be attracted to the one that is made of thick rubber. It looks stronger and I want stronger. But the handle attaches to the pail with these tiny little plastic clips that are sure to break if I just look at it wrong. So this rubber pail lacks integrity.
On the other hand, the pail next to it is plastic and fairly cheap looking. But its weakest link is stronger than the rubber pail’s weakest link. It doesn’t look like much, but it’s a stronger pail and will do its job quite nicely. It’s humble.
While I don’t fully agree with the working definitions JSS used, I do agree with point he and Faust are making. Neither necessitates those specific moral judgments, as if absolutes. However, I will say that integrity should necessitate a moral judgment, by its very definition. Whatever code of conduct or ethical principles you observe become the measure of your honesty and consistency in adherence to that code [aka “integrity”].
Integrity is in consistency and honesty. The build of the rubber pail lacks honesty [it is presented as more sturdy than it actually is] and consistency [it won’t remain as is, it will likely break].
Humility is in a modest estimation of worth. The plastic pail isn’t presented as anything particularly special. It is just a pail that will get the job done.
So, using an example from the OP and JSS’s revision, I’d revise even further–
Humility: I am no better than the beggar, perhaps I can empathize.
Integrity: I give food rather than money to panhandlers because I don’t know where the money is going.
Also, the panhandler might represent the weakest links in our society. Helping the weak might make us stronger as a whole society, at least if done well.
Another concern that is causing some problems is that we are trying to apply very general terms and descriptors to very specific issues.
One can be humble to the King or one can be humble to the queen.
One can be humble to religiosity or one can be humble to reality
One can be humble to policy or one can be humble to morality.
The same kind of concern applies to integrity; “You can’t trust that guy as far as you could throw his Hummer, but the integrity of his mathematics is impeccable.”
Of course, in the unicorn universe, one really can serve two masters as they always will agree.
It seems to me that integrity and humility can overlap. If someone asks me to explain String Theory, I could take a stab at it (and a poor one) or I could with both appropriate humility AND integrity say, ‘you should probably ask someone else.’
I also don’t think in the example above giving one’s money to a panhandler has to be about humility or a loss of integrity. It could be, but I don’t see this as necessary. Further the panhandler’s questions lacks humility or at least could?
The question trying to invoke humility can also be attacked as not humble. A humble defense of abortion rights could be based on not knowing one can determine what women should do (in all cases).
I think the qualities involved in humilty and integrity can overlap - not the humility where one makes oneself small, but where one acknowledges what one’s limits are in a particular area at a given moment.
Moreno,
I think you get to the heart of it, but how do you articulate those arguments? That’s where the really juicy stuff is, when you can appropriate both of the sides which frame a debate. The more integrity, the more humble the stance. Being steadfastly humble. But what does that look like in these situations. I’m not satisfied with “you should probably ask someone else” being the voice of steadfast humility.
I thought it had to do with those potty-pans the Victorians used…