From: Erik Aronesty (erik@zoneedit.com)
Date: Mon Nov 10 2003 - 15:42:32 MST
> > : Is someone that has integrity necessarily virtuous?
> >
> > No, they are merely inneffective. And they waste other people's time
and resources.
>
> I assume you meant the opposite?
Right! There I was talking about people's time and resources, and wasting
them myself.
> > : How does it relate to the existing sins and virtues?
> > It is orthoganal, with a purpose to motivate them.
> It is not orthogonal if integrity is logically the opposite of hypocrisy.
> If your definition differs, could you elaborate?
I agree that they are similar.
However, "having integrity" can be more motivating than "not being
hypocritical". I think this was mentioned elsewhere.
And I want COV to succeed. Really.
> > : Is it always rational to maintain integrity?
> > What is rational about saying you will do something when you will not?
> Wouldn't that depend on the circumstances?
When you lack integrity, you waste people's time and energy. Integrity is
not some"absolute". People have "measures" of integrity. For example if I
tell someone I'm going to be there at 5:00, and I call them, tell them I'll
be late, and show up at 5:01, I lack some integrity. But if I don't show up
at alll, I lack a whole lot of integrity.
Plus there is the "overlap" issue. I may commit to social change in a
certain area. This commitment may create a conflict where I must violate
previous social contracts in order to uphold new ones.
The point is not that a person "must always be in integrity". The point is
that it is a "virtue"... a generally desireably and rarely fully attainable
state of being.... in Integrity.
--- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 10 2003 - 15:44:13 MST