The Importance Of Integrity In Society Philosophy Essay

The wideness Of rectitude In Society school of thought Es give tongue toThe design of slump has passed a key fictional character in incorrupt philosophical system through with(predicate) and through forbidden history and is promoted in either societies because of its grandeur to friendly relations (Schlenker, 2009). Individual honor is vital to federation as the kind of hunting lodge which is likely to be to a greater extent contri nonwithstandingory to lawfulness which is sensation which en adequate to(p)s battalion to develop and make use of their potentiality for critical studyion, hotshot(a) which does not force hoi polloi to take up particular roles because of their sex or race or all few other priming, and virtuoso which does not encourage psyches to betray each other either to escape prison or to advance their c argoner. Besides, societies can be fortunate to the schooling of singular ace. Society expects and requires single of its attr actorship. A person of fairness insists on doing what is right at all quantify, not only when he knows that a superior or subordinate is watching him. It is the courage to established a bombing run when one knows full well that the throw for survival is poor or non- constituteent or the courage to admit ruin rather than alter a report (Duggar nd.).Ethics come into play when the interests of others be incorporated into the calculus of ad hominemand art decision-making as gentle beings we live embedded in a edict. The most successful soulfulnesss and companies ar those with reputations of high individual rightfulness among everyone they deal with. This train of integrity framings the assumption and enables them to do more business than their competitors whose honorable motive whitethorn be a little unstable (Barry Stephens, 1998). law is complete honesty in any short letter (Flynn, 1978). We must agree what is really right and really damage. beneficial even trans cends the violation of regulations. You must oppose what is wrong and support what is right even if it costs you your life or your c beer. In other spoken language, integrity means more to the professional shooticer than the dictionary definition. It means honesty, truthfulness, reliability, impartiality, sincerity, unmannerly mindedness, thinkworthiness, and courage. It means totally respectable demeanor at all times and in all items, regardless of the consequences. It cannot be turned on and off as desired it is the focus of the professionals life (Flynn, 1978).Babbitt (1997) explicitly cogitate individual integrity to tender structures in a way that broadens the fantasy of integrity. If social educational structures fail to facilitate the life of integrity, other structures whitethorn be positively hostile to it. As Babbitt (1997) notes, one ask to be able to make selections in order to develop the kinds of interests and concerns which ar significant to tingeing a life of integrity. On the other hand, oppressed people are lotstimes able to reflect on social realities with the greater insight because they do not benefit from them. They encounter no incentive to accept self-deceptive attitudes more or less circumstances of oppression or to see past them with convenient blindness. Oppressed groups therefore confine all the more scope to think about social reality with integrity, and to act out of this apprehending with integrity. A capacity for reflection and understanding enables one to pasture toward integrity even if it does not ensure that one accomplishs an ideal of integrity.An sufficient account of privateised integrity must recognize that some social structures are of the wrong sort altogether for some individuals to be able to pursue personal integrity, and that headlands about the lesson nature of inn often need to be asked first before questions about personal integrity can properly be raised (Babbitt, 1997). Questions about integrity may turn out to be, not about the relationship ming reign with individual characteristics, interests, choices and so on, and a society, scarce rather about what kind of society it is in terms of which an individual comes to possess certain interests, characteristics, and so on. This does not imply that questions about personal integrity are entirely lesson, not having to do with idiosyncratic characteristics of individuals instead, it suggests that the very meaning of personal integrity in particular cases sometimes depends upon more general take onations about the nature of the society that makes some idiosyncratic properties identifying and others not. The pursuit of adequate personal integrity often depends, not so oft on understanding who one is and what one turn overs and is committed to, just now rather understanding what ones society is and imagining what it could be (Babbitt, 1997).3.1 The Importance of justness in OrganizationIntegrity refers to the culture, policies, and attractership philosophy at the corporate level. A culture of integrity has to start at the run and be seen in the activities of the executives. The leadinghip of the corporation must develop a consensus around the shared value (Warren, 2009).Placing organisational andpersonal integrity in the deterrent example context could give government a framework for articulating subtile aspects of the societys organizational life such as culture, routines, and so on. These create school impact on profitability and on the companys sustainability. The reason is that in the like way as individuals possess an identity or character, the company does too. The organizational culture of a firm is the personality, identity or character of the company. It is comprised of the assumptions, set, norms and honorable orientation of organization members, as well as of their manners (Nelly, 2007).Integrity is infallible to effective leadership in the work come out of the closet. It may possibly place at the top among the characteristic that a leader needs to possess. Thus, when faced between right and wrong, integrity means making the correct choice for leader. Besides, leaders in organizations and companies fate up ability to manage and motivate workers while furthering the aims and goals of the business. A leader who consistently demonstrates integrity and the al small(a)ingness to make the right decisions for the nice of the organization encourages loyalty and commitment from workers. It is an chief(prenominal) factor in moving the company for those workers respond positively to a leader or manager with integrity (Kelchner nd.). Workers pass oning catch on and follow suit if employers will demonstrate honesty and integrity in all situations. concord to Bruyn power for the leader does not flow from the organization but from the modulate that leader has to impel people to recognize and accept that power. Simply, a leader must build and mai ntain credibility with his followers. Those leaders who rely upon the organization to give them the dexterity they need will never have sufficient place to control out their tasks because what they need is not berth from an outside source but to build cast through integrity so that they can influence people themselves. It is not the plate on the door that gives a leader the authority to lead but the trust of the people being led (Maxwell, can buoy, 1993).It is all important(p) for an individual to determine for an employer with similar values. This match will be a key factor in ones ability to grow professionally and gain experience. As Quigley (2007) has pointed out, the culture of integrity may be out-of-the-way(prenominal) more important than the starting salary in ones quest for personal and professional fulfilment. He notes that corporations with a culture of integrity will twist support to employees through colleagues and processes in place. Consultation with other is seen as strength rather than a weakness and supports a work-life balance. This is because it reduces job stress, balances ones perspective, and contributes to job felicity (Quigley, 2007).3.2 The Importance of Integrity in IndividualsIntegrity is attributed to various parts or aspects of a persons life. There are those attributes such as professional, intellectual and delicate integrity. Integrity is more than incorrupt philosophy at the individual level. It is all about the character of the individual. It is those characteristics of an individual that are consistently considerate, compassionate, transparent, honest, and good. However, the most philosophically important feel of the term integrity relates to general character (Cox, La Caze, Levine, 2001).Integrity communicates to self and others in a way that psychic wholeness or individuation does not. It is this quality of communicability that reduces integrity such an essential factor in psychotherapeutic practice. It de termines the way in which the individual relates to the arena and to others in the dry land as well as to his or her own self. It can be understood as a particular moral, as opposed to psycho reproducible attribute which has a direct relationship with the rest of the subjects moral being while being independent of it at the same time. It is a habituated of personality and cannot be achieved (Gross, 2001).According to Quigley (2007), he emphasizes the critical role of trust in the professional success of an individual. He states Simply put, those who bend rules are not considered trus bothrthy, and without trust an individuals value is severely diminished. Markets do not turn and value is destroyed without trust and confidence. (Quigley, 2007, p.9). Quigley goes on to note the critical grandness of integrity and character in the workplace. Competencies are meaningless if lacking trust. Individuals who are not trustworthy will not be given opportunities or responsibilities, and th ey will not be wanted as team members by clients or other employees. Individuals are untrustworthy without integrity. Individuals who own integrity will commit to choosing right before they find themselves in a situation (Quigley, 2007).Integrity is a quality of tincture that lives in all of us (Sherman, 2003). Professional integrity and ethical behaviour is crucial for personalcredibilityand professional success within the business world.Each profession has a mold of core values by which it identifies its very essence (Brown, 1980). Professionals who have worked with personnel who lacked integrity talk about the inability to count on individuals to do what they have said they would do, environments where the focus has gone from customers to protecting oneself, and where leaders are unwilling to live by the values that they publicly aliment abreast (Warren, 2009. To act with professional integrity, each member of the profession has the responsibility to have personal integrity , and the best of us create environments that nourish the integrity of others (Sherman, 2003).4.0 former(a) Relevant Theories4.1 Kohlberg TheoryThis section discusses the relevant theories in explaining integrity and morality. In order to study the system for integrity and ethics, one must understand moral development. According to Kohlberg (1971) moral development is divided into lead levels with six stagecoachs. His possible action for this development is establish on the thinking of Jean Piaget and John Dewey, who are Swiss psychologist and American philosopher respectively (Barger, nd.). Moral development proposed by Kohlberg believing that people progressed in their moral reasoning through a series of stages.LevelStage complaisant OrientationPre-conventional1 homage and Punishment2Individualism, Instrumentalism, and ExchangeConventional3Good male child/girl4Law and OrderPost-conventional5Social fuck off6Principled ConscienceTable 1 Lawrence Kohlbergs Moral ontogeny Fram eworkThe first level in moral development is pre-conventional level with two stages. Stage one is obedience and punishment. In this stage, people will try their best to avoid punishment and will not question human meaning or value on these consequences. In short, people behave is depends on social acceptable norms which set by authority group, such as parent, political leaders and teacher. This element can be found in ethic context. iodin is regarded to fulfill the ethical mien if they behave consistent with social norms that set in their society. While in stage two, the benchmark for right behavior is means acting for self-interest. They will typically satisfy their own needs before the others. people in this group are practicing the element of fairness, reciprocity and qualified sharing, however, in a pragmatic way, for example you affect my back and I will scratch yours (Kohlberg,1971).Conventional level of moral development is much common in today society. Good boy/girl in stage three explains that good behavior is usually judge by intention. It further explained that good behavior is actions that making others happy, helping others, and must approved by them. Integrity consists of element in stage three as integrity is not solely depended on rule and regulation by authority group. Instead, it is emphasized on personal judgment, for example, trust is scantily to measure with rule and regulations. On the other hand, stage four is law oriented. This means that people in this group are behaving based on a inflexible set of rules and regulation. This can explain well the characteristic of ethic. In ethic study, one is considered acting ethically if he/she complied with the legal point of view set by authority in society. He/she is considered practicing moral if he/she doing his duty, respecting authority decision, and comply with the given social norms.Third level of Kohlberg moral development is suitable to explain the characteristic of integrity. In S olomon (1999) view integrity incorporates a balance between loyalty and moral autonomy and it is related with moral humility. Social contract in stage five under post-conventional level is the straight of stage 4 law and order. Behavior under social take on is still based on law and regulations set in society, but subjected to rational consideration. This means that there is a possibility of changing in law set by society, depending on the situation. It is about the mutual benefit, upbeat and interest of the society as explained by Palanski and Yammarino (2007) integrity is about wholeness. The resist stage is about principled conscience, which emphasize on popular principal and individual conscience. As discuss in Gutmann (1945) paper, integrity is seems to be something farthest more than a simple agreement. Gutmann said in order to achieve integrity, adjustment of innumerable elements which themselves compose the people character. There is no fixed rules and law, but it is based on intrinsic moral value. It is consistence with stage five in Kohlberg Moral Development, theorem emphasize on the ecumenic principles of justice, reciprocity, equal respect and the dignity of human right. For example, a person claims to practice integrity if his /her actions are based on their conscience. At the same time, the actions done are fulfilling the common principles.4.2 The Forsyth TheoryHigh Relativism Low RelativismSituationistsHigh Idealism-Rejects moral codes-personal analysis of actions in each situation-relativistic-Idealistic SkepticAbsolutists Accepts moral codes honest decisions must not harm others DeontologistSubjectivistsLow Idealism Rejects moral codes ain values determine judgments, Not universal codes Ethical egoistsExceptionists Accepts moral codes, but open to exceptions. Optimal outcomes not possible for all Teleologist, utilitarian bet 1Forsyths Taxonomy of personal Moral Philosophies (S.J. Forsyth, 1980)Sources Chan. L. M, Othman. J Joned. R (2011), The Conceptual ensample of Personal Philosophy Ethical Decision Making. Journal of Management Research.According to Bass, Barnett Brown (1998) the differences between the ethical theories of deontology, teleology, and scepticism are the degree of the theories which is relativistic or non relativistic. Generally, most of the ethics theories recognized the personal moral philosophy (PMP) as one of important elements for individuals ethical decision making process.Forsyth (1980) has designed a 2 X 2 category of moral philosophies based on these two dimensions. He terms the integrated system of ethics as personal moral philosophy (PMP). According to Forsyth (1980) a persons moral printings, attitudes and values are included PMP. In the PMP, it provides the guidelines for moral judgments, solutions to ethical dilemmas, because it contains the elements produced by previous experiences in resolving ethical dilemmas (Chan, Othman Joned, 2011).As Forsyth (1980) states relativi sm is the degree to which an individual rejects universal moral rules as appropriate guidelines for ethical decisions. Forsyth (1992) argued moral rules exist in a situational context as a function of time, place and culture and relativism said that moral absolutes should be rejected. Normally, high relativistic people who will believe the universal ethical codes or moral principles are not important when making ethical judgments and decision because they must consider external factors excessively. While, low relativistic person when making a moral judgments or decision will more stress on the importance of rigid adherence to ethical codes.Forsyth (1988) explained that idealism is involves expand of an individuals concern with the welfare of others. This is the degree to which an individual believes that desirable consequences can, with the right action, always be obtained (Forsyth, 1980). An dreamer believes that morally correct actions will always produce negative and also posit ive consequences (Forsyth, 1980). A person who are highly idealistic individuals are believe that harming is avoidable, and they would rather not choose if the decision will lead to negative consequences for other people (Karande, Rao, Singhapakdi, 2002). Idealism involves the values which related to sense of optimism in considering responses to moral issues however, it is not based on an embrace of moral absolutes (Singhapakdi, Vitell, Franke, 1999). Therefore, idealism and relativism are conceptually independent, and individuals maybe high or low on either dimensions (Forsyth, 1980 Karande, 2002).From the previous research and finding found that some(prenominal) authors concluded the differences in personal moral philosophies are influence individuals toward the combative of ethical issues (business ethics). Based on the variety of social and ethics issues, the personal moral philosophy have shown that the beliefs on which ethical decisions should be make are important elemen ts of attitudes (Chan, Othman Joned, 2011).5.0 The Relationship Between Integrity and Ethics In OrganizationAn organizations success depends on the integrity of its employees. Over the past several(prenominal) of the studies, many documented evidence proven of unethical behaviour in organizations (McDonal Nijhof, 1999). The lack of morality and ethics (employee) in an organization will results in lost security and credibility. The employees are the person who always contact with customers therefore, they are representative of organizations image. If an employee acts without integrity will cause organizations reputation damaged and both customers and employees a tragic loss (Czimbal Brooks, nd.). The behaviour and performance of leaders were sham to affect other people and organization (Cielo, nd.).According to Cheney (2006) organizations that have conducted an ethical orientation will witness the improved reputations. Generally, most theories and empirical research have attribut ed unethical behaviour to situational variables associated with the organization, characteristics of the individuals, or the interaction between these two factors (Trevin, 1986 Ford Richardson, 1994 Loe, 2000). Following by this, ethics and integrity also became a research focus, and specifically the relationship between a contribute individuals successfulness and the collective good. However, Dehspande (1996) argued that ethics policies in an organization and ethical behaviour of employees and instruction within an organization are two different concepts yet, they do influence each other.According to Peterson (2003) the degree to which a person believes in universal moral is influence by how are the situational variables is. That is, some individuals may believe that certain acts such as bribe, unfaithful, are always wrong. However, the other individuals may reject the concept that there are universal moral rules and birth that what make up ethical behaviour depends on the situa tion of the behaviour. one and only(a) of the possibilities that is, every people is different, in terms of their degree of believe in universal moral rules, and the belief that related to ethics. All such elements have been incorporated into a number of theories on ethical behaviour. The belief of ethics is relative incorporated into a number of theories on ethical behaviour is related to the possibility that individuals differ in terms of the degree to which they believe.One of the situational factors is after the observed unethical behaviour among many organizations it assume that the much of the differences is the integrity or ethical attitudes of the organizations leaders (Sims Brinkmann, 2002). According to Resick, Hanges, Marcus, Dickson, and Mitchelson (2006) explored approval that one of the components that characterize ethical leadership is integrity. Due to Beu and Buckley (2004) claimed that organization members will be influences if that leaders with unethical practi ces. Follow by Simons (1999) studied integral behaviour as an ingredient of leadership and found that a meaningful direct relationship between integrity and the ability to incur the changes. Davis and Rothslein (2006) further commented that ethical leadership involves personal integrity.The six core universal moral values stated in the Aspen Declaration have been referred to by other business ethicists (Carroll, 1993 Schwartz,2002) Josephson institute of ethics (1996) claim that what appear from the analysis is that moral values are declaim by other resources. The values include the chase (Josephson, 1996)Trustworthiness (including the notions of honesty, integrity, reliability, and loyaltyRespect (including concept of civility, autonomy, and tolerance)Responsibility (including notions of accountability, excellence, and self- restraint)Fairness (including concepts of process, impartiality and equity)Caring (including notions of concern for the welfare of others, as well as benevole nce)andCitizenship (including concept of respecting the law and protecting environment).According to Peterson Forsyth (1980) was proposed that the beliefs of individuals varied along from a secure belief in universal moral rules to a belief that ethics is relative. Kohlbergs (1969) original model viewed moral development as progressing through a series of stages and levels. An individual are assumed to believe in universal values or principles where highest level of moral are developed. It would seem logical to assume that individuals would not slow to be affected others views, such as leaders in organization because of the strong belief in universal moral rules (Peterson, 2003).Forsyths model normally individual who expected to solve ethical dilemma is adapted to belief in universal moral rules. However, in Kohlbergs model, individuals functioning at the highest level of moral reasoning are assumed to follow to a self-chosen set of moral rules and are expected to reason beyond t he norms, laws, or authority of any individual group. Therefore, it acceptable to say that individual with strong belief in moral rules is not easily to be influenced.Conversely, it also reasonable to say that individuals who are strongly belief universal moral rules could be easily influenced by external factors in determining ethically appropriate. In Forsyths framework, individual will judge ethical dilemmas based on their personal perception and knowledge towards the situation if they do not belief in universal moral values. However, according to Kohbergs model, some of the individual will classified at the level of moral to determine ethically appropriate based on their expectations of behaviour of others, such as family, a peer group, or society in general. Therefore, based on all these theories, people who not believe in universal moral rules seems likely easily influenced by others, as well as the leaders in the organization ( Peterson, 2003).6.0 ConclusionThe relationship b etween integrity and ethics remains unclear because the researchers (McAllister, 1995 Kramer, 2000 Tyler, 2003) failed to declare the relationship between these two concepts through their researches. The reasons behind this phenomenon are clear as the relationship between integrity and ethics are mutual in nature. Integrity is a personal code of conduct that goes above the letter of good conduct and encompasses the spirit of good conduct (Shane, 2007) whereas ethics is an entity to be formed within a societal or environmental situation. The foundation assumption of ethics is that it develops through time, space and context. Integrity defined as the consistency of an acting entitys words and actions (Palanski Yammarino, 2007). The reciprocal relationship has create confusion towards the understanding on how scarcely these two distinct concepts works in a social phenomenon.Kohlberg theory attempts to capture the whole relationship between these two dimensions which is integrity and ethics. However, this theory is still way behind to explain the relationship. Kohlbergs theory is concerned with moral thinking, but there are always a big falling out between knowing what we should to do and our real actions (Cherry, nd.). Perceived an individuals functioning at the highest level of moral reasoning are assumed to follow to a self-chosen set of moral rules and are expected to reason beyond the norms, laws, or authority of any individual group (Peterson, 2003) . Thus, it adequate to about that individual with strong belief in moral rules is not easily to be influenced.The challenge of modern society is that there is a missing tie in between people and the quality of integrity. It has been lost to most in our world and culture. Some people not even know what integrity means. Integrity is a model of truthful and honest, yet its value in society seems to be underrated. Integrity is complete honesty in any situation (Flynn, 1978). Having a high level of integrity is on e of the most important characteristic people can possess. It is a core value, a choice and something people can nurture. Integrity means totally ethical behavior at all times and in all situations, regardless of the consequences. People may not always be right or do right, but if people have integrity, they will accept the responsibility associate with their actions. People will feel remorse if they have done something wrong and revise their mistakes to ensure it will not happen in the future.A general is that an organization always overvalues the differentiation of the organization culture from the topic culture. Different organization from a given country share many characteristics (Hofstede 1991 Zander 1997). They are differing according to the ethical values focused on and the writ of execution approaches used. Some companies focus on the core values of integrity that reflect basic obligations, such as respect for the rights of others, honesty, fair dealing, and obedience to the law. another(prenominal) companies highlight ambitions values that are ethically desirable but not necessarily morally obligatory such as good return to customers, a commitment to diversity, and involvement in the community (Paine, 2001).As astray defined, integrity is more than ethics (Duggar, nd.). However, the issue arise is that it is hard for one to be classified as an individual of integrity. This is because the meaning of integrity itself is obscure and confusing, for instance, Turnnet (nd.) stated that individual of integrity will be responsible to pass on promises. In practice, we are hardly to judge whether someone are retentiveness promise based on their responsibility. For instance, an employee could work overtime because he wants to keep his promises and responsibility in completing tasks. It may also happen because the employee intends to cause overtime paid by dragging the given tasks. Unlike ethics, integrity has no guideline or code to be followed. As ke ep an eye on by Duggar, integrity is about fair, just and acceptable. However these elements are hardly to be standardized as it is very subjective.