Nothing can corrupt and disintegrate a culture or a man’s character as thoroughly as does the precept of moral agnosticism, the idea that one must never pass moral judgment on others, that one must be morally tolerant of anything, that the good consists of never distinguishing good from evil. (…) To abstain from condemning a torturer, is to become an accessory to the torture and murder of his victims. — Ayn Rand
Good and evil is the province of morality, not integrity. Values are personal; morality is not. Consider the following dialogue with a coaching client:
“Are you proud of acting in alignment with your values?” I asked William.”I certainly am,” he relished.”
So is the fanatic who blows himself up in the middle of a crowd.”
“That’s ridiculous!” William exploded, “You can’t compare me with a suicide bomber.”
“Why not? We are assessing human behavior, and both you and the suicide bomber are humans behaving.””
Are you saying I am evil?”
“Not at all. The suicide bomber’s actions are evil; yours are not. Yet both of you are acting in alignment with your personal values, both of you can rightfully claim you are acting in integrity. My point is that integrity cannot be what differentiates good from evil.”
Integrity
In the previous post, I defined integrity as acting in alignment with your values. Some values are evil, and integrity with them leads to evil behavior. Some values are good, and integrity with them will lead to good behavior. So what defines whether some values are good or evil?
Read more: Integrity Is Not Enough (3.5) | Fred Kofman
