Integrity

in·teg·ri·ty (¹n-tµg“r¹-t¶) n. 1. Steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code. 2. The state of being unimpaired; soundness. 3. The quality or condition of being whole or undivided; completeness.

íntegro, gra.

(Del lat. intĕger, -gra).

1. adj. Que no carece de ninguna de sus partes.
2. adj. Dicho de una persona: Recta, proba, intachable.


A code of ethics can be personal or adopted, but there has to be a code of ethics if you are to qualify a person as having Integrity. You cannot, however, have a code of ethics that shifts daily. That is to say: a person can't have a set of beliefs today and switch it to another tomorrow. It might be a confortable position, but it means that the person lacks Integrity. Also called shifting the goal posts...

You can apply this quality to a man or a woman, and it is one of the first and most important signifiers, if you want to think of this man or woman as a gentleman or a lady.

If you change your beliefs daily, you lack Integrity. Stephen Covey says in his book "The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People" that you have to have integrity in the critical moments. You have to be true to yourself and a code of ethics that does not change according to whichever way the wind is blowing.

Also related to this is what I call the Intention of an act. This one might be more flexible, in the sense that you may have your own code of ethics that does not match the code of ethics of the people you relate to, but if you accept the consequences of your act, the Intention might be good.

The Intention of an Act is followed by the Act itself and the Consequences of an Act. As I said, if your intentions are good, the act will probably be good and therefore the consequences.

If the Intention of the Act is confused, there is ample reason to suspect that the three complete parts of the Act are probably suspect.

Elizabeth Hilt's book on The Perfect Bitch lacks Integrity, because the intention of the book is not necessarily to solve a problem, but also seeks to confront the two persons in a relationship, be it personal or a professional relationship. This is a commercial book written for women that really do not know how to address and solve a problem with a relationship with a man. It would be wiser to take the man in your life to therapy. I don't mean YOU personally, but if the shoe fits, by all means wear it....

As for the Categorical Imperative, I will refer you directly to Wikipedia and a simple description of what it is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative

Which to me means that you can do whatever you want as long as you accept the consequences of your actions, without expecting reward or punishment of any sort.

Good Will, Duty and the Categorical Imperative

First Formulation: Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.

Second Formulation: Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.

Third Formulation: Therefore, every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends.

There! I changed some of the wording again and this time I hope I don't get any unnecessarily disagreeable comments. I'm doing the best I can here, so bear with me.