No, what more reason is needed? The case I stated is merely an example, I hold no such religious beliefs. so far so good... Now that seems odd, what then do you mean by "The right thing", In what sense is "HARMING an innocent creature purely without any good reason. " doing something wrong then? Huh? I think you misunderstand what I said. It is impossible for us to know if any moral truths exist. This knowledge is simply unavailable to us no matter how hard we look. Epistemology is the study of knowledge, what sorts of things we can and cannot know is a part of that. To say that it is epistemologically impossible is to say that we can not obtain such knowledge. Excellant counter, I can't argue with that. (said sarcastically) right.... evil is not something that can be defined in the way you want me to define it. Not to mention it is irrelevant to the example I proposed. The counter-factual 'me' need not be educated in philosophy, it is only required that I hold these beliefs, whether they can't hold up when examined is irrelevant. Why? The counter-factual me 'could' exist. That would take a while...
Is our personal Integrity something that other people can judge? Perhaps it is, but surely it is more important that we, as individuals value our Integrity, rather than have others find us lacking! AndyM
Well, really, I think that "integrity" has two sides. In Silat, the terms "hormat" and "adat" are used. My understanding of these terms may not be 100% accurate and I may be missing some nuances. But overall, I think these can be used to describe the two sides of integrity. "Adat" refers to how we act toward others. "Hormat" refers to how our actions are perceived by others. So, "adat" is like "internal integrity" ... it's how we perceive our own integrity and it governs our actions. "Hormat" would be like "external integrity" ... how others perceive our integrity based on our actions. In this way, "proper" adat is not always "proper" hormat. For instance, if I'm talking to an Indonesian with my arms crossed then my "adat" is fine. In my perception I'm doing nothing wrong. But my "hormat" is screwed. The Indonesian (unless he makes allowances because I'm a rude and ignorant American) will perceive my actions as rude ... and that's assuming he doesn't flat out attack me. Crossed arms is considered an aggressive and confrontational stance. Same with hands on hips. So, as my instructor once explained it, if both parties consider something proper hormat then it is proper hormat, regardless of what others aside from the concerned parties may think. But if one concerned party considers it improper hormat then it is improper hormat ... regardless of what anyone else (in or out of the concerned parties) thinks. I think integrity, in application if not definition, also has these two sides. A funny story related to this: Herman Suwanda (an Indonesian Silat instructor) was talking about the Indonesian perception of crossed arms or hands on hips at a seminar. I asked him about hands in pockets. He said, "It's not considered confrontational, but I'd attack first." I said, "What do you mean?" He said, "Well, in Indonesia, we don't have pockets like you do here in America. If someone has his hand inside his clothes like that he's probably pulling a knife." In America we don't think anything of people putting their hands in their pockets ... maybe we should Mike
Perhaps, but what good does that serve us in the end? That person believes that it is the right thing to do to put cats in the microwave, since ge does it he has personal integrity. Maybe another one that doesn't involve cats That person feels that crashing a plane into the WTC is a good thing to do, so he has personal integrity. Ok, It's better to put cats in the microwave if you believe it the right thing, even if people will think poorly of you. It's better to crash planes into the WTC if you think it is the right thing to do, regardless of what others will think of you.
Microwavable Cats? He can't be serious. Cats are evil? They can be cruel in the playing with their victims, but evil? Geeze I'm gone for awhile and everyone has gone crazy! People in Europe once did not like cats either, it brought the plaque! Thomas
'He can't be serious. Cats are evil? ' Thomas - He's Canadian. The cats apparently had very good teeth (plaque) but really mean fleas! (plague)
Stop it! No wonder Ag doesn't like cats they keep biting him with their good teeth? Actually woul they not have bad teeth. What do you mean by Canadian? Enlighten me? Thomas
Let me give you an example of what US ENGLISH have as a good idea of Canadians. Have you heard of Monty Python? "I'm a lumberjack and I'm ok, I work all night and I sleep all day.....I wear tights, suspenders and a bra, just like me dear ole Ma" Written by John Cleese... (Hahaha)
If your going to do it, do it right BARBER: I'm a lumberjack, and I'm okay. I sleep all night and I work all day. MOUNTIES: He's a lumberjack, and he's okay. He sleeps all night and he works all day. BARBER: I cut down trees. I eat my lunch. I go to the lavatory. On Wednesdays I go shoppin' And have buttered scones for tea. MOUNTIES: He cuts down trees. He eats his lunch. He goes to the lavatory. On Wednesdays he goes shoppin' And has buttered scones for tea. He's a lumberjack, and he's okay. He sleeps all night and he works all day. BARBER: I cut down trees. I skip and jump. I like to press wild flowers. I put on women's clothing And hang around in bars. MOUNTIES: He cuts down trees. He skips and jumps. He likes to press wild flowers. He puts on women's clothing And hangs around in bars?! He's a lumberjack, and he's okay. He sleeps all night and he works all day. BARBER: I cut down trees. I wear high heels, Suspendies, and a bra. I wish I'd been a girlie, Just like my dear Papa. MOUNTIES: He cuts down trees. He wears high heels, Suspendies, and a bra?! [talking] What's this? Wants to be a girlie?! Oh, My! And I thought you were so rugged! Poofter! [singing] He's a lumberjack, and he's okay. He sleeps all night and he works all day. He's a lumberjack, and he's okaaaaay. He sleeps all night and he works all day.
The Philosophy forum song. Immanuel Kant was a real ****ant Who was very rarely stable. Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar Who could think you under the table. David Hume could out-consume Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel, And Wittgenstein was a beery swine Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel. There's nothing Nietzche couldn't teach ya 'Bout the raising of the wrist. Socrates, himself, was permanently ****ed. John Stuart Mill, of his own free will, On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill. Plato, they say, could stick it away-- Half a crate of whiskey every day. Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle. Hobbes was fond of his dram, And René Descartes was a drunken fart. 'I drink, therefore I am.' Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed, A lovely little thinker, But a bugger when he's ****ed And Melanie, who tried to make fun of me, will join the cat and that will be the end of that.
MMMMM... Beer. Besides Canadian martial arts are much better then British. So long as I'm not armed with any fresh fruit I'll pull your jacket over your head and beat you while my pet beaver cuts you off at the ankles.
Ok - I think we have been silly enough now...what an earth was this thread about again? Ahhh - yes - Integrity... Sorry Yoda!
Hi Yoda, Good qoute. I would like to think I do for the most part. Not only as a martial artist, but also as a minister. Of course like Mike said..none of us are perfect. I always try to remember two things that I have been taught all my life. 1) "You may be the only version anyone ever sees of your religiuos beliefs, make it a good one." 2) "You leave a part of yourself behind with everyones life that you touch." I would like to think that I have left a good version of me with the people I meet. But the truth is, we may never know for sure. Oh well, I think the best anyone of us can do is to try to be the best person we can be...if we can't look ourselves in the mirror every morning without knowing that we can at least try to be a good, honest, compassionate human, chances are noone else will see it that way either. Peace, Tae P.S. Mike, Right on with the Donuts.
Yoda once started a thread called "This could take a few posts" in whch he posted Matt Thornton's view of training "Alive". At first It didnt seem relevant to this topic to me, but now that I'm hearing this adat hormat stuff, I think it is. External Ingegrity (hormat) sounds alot like "image", and Internal Integrity (adat) sounds alot like "performance". There was another thread called "Black Arts" (or something along those lines) which got around to the topic of good and evil. It ended with the agreement that everyone sees good and evil differently (although I will agree that there are some things that anyone who isnt legally insane will agree is evil, although they may be driven to do it for some reason). I think that integrity is a sort of definition for how we've made our lives, which of course consists of how you view your life and how others view their life. Performace and Image. Adat and Hormat. Of course, in order to have good external integrity, one must have done the "right" thing on many occasions. So I guess its just a way of measuring how well we've lived our lives. I hope this leaves room for debate Sean O
/me has seen Andrew's pet beaver, stay clear of it as I have seen its wrathy wake of destuction on many occasions. Speaking of things to stay clear of; how about Karate class on your birthday! Onto the matter at hand. . . . Integrity = (in my definition) morale soundness. If we look at morality as "a state of individual psychological well-being based upon a sense of confidence and usefulness and purpose" then you can clearly see that evil people can have integrity. If a person wants to do something we "normal" folk consider wrong (kill, steal, put mammals under intense high frequency electro-magnetic waves) that does not take away from their integrity as long as they belive it is the right thing to do and they can morally justify it. Say good ol Mr.X decides to "nuke" his cat. Mr.X thinks the cat is just getting too expensive, between the vet bills, the food, and repairing his scratched furniture he just can't afford the cat. Next Mr.X uses his set of values (which maybe diffrent from yours or mine) to determine if this is the right thing to do: Having the cat = spending money and time on something that just perpetually costs more money and time. Having no cat = more money and more time and less worry. conclusion = getting rid of the cat would do me good and I like the smell of baked mammalian. The values of the argument are arbitrary so there is no use to argue them in further posts, I just used them as an example as how Mr.X morally justified getting rid of his cat. The key though is that Mr.X has to truly belive that what he is doing is right.
I agree though, "moral soundness" is a good way of putting it. I've been looking through some dictionaries, and I couldn't find a descriptive term for integrity. So really you can only have integrity on an intrapersonal level. I still think that "Hormat" is image, which in the long run, doesnt mean much.
