Editing Integrity (section)

== In ethics ==
In [[ethics]], a person is said to possess the [[virtue]] of integrity if the person's actions are based upon an internally consistent framework of principles.<ref name="MacCallum1993">{{multiref2
|1={{cite book|first=Gerald Cushing |last=MacCallum|title=Legislative Intent and Other Essays on Law, Politics, and Morality|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Y3yLFD_FgdIC|access-date=12 July 2014|year=1993|publisher=Univ of Wisconsin Press|isbn=978-0299138608|page=152}}
|2={{cite book|first=Krishna |last=Pillai|title=Essence of a Manager|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=iUU64EsXeHEC|access-date=12 July 2014|year=2011|publisher=Springer Science & Business Media|isbn=978-3642175817|page=163}}
}}</ref> These principles should uniformly adhere to sound logical [[axiom]]s or postulates. A person has ethical integrity to the extent that the person's actions, beliefs, methods, measures, and principles align with a well-integrated [[value system|core group of values]]. A person must, therefore, be flexible and willing to adjust these values to maintain consistency when these values are challenged—such as when observed results are incongruous with expected outcomes. Because such flexibility is a form of [[accountability]], it is regarded as a [[moral responsibility]] as well as a virtue.

A person's [[value system]] provides a [[Conceptual framework|framework]] within which the person acts in ways that are consistent and expected. Integrity can be seen as the state of having such a framework and acting congruently within it.

One essential aspect of a consistent framework is its avoidance of any unwarranted (arbitrary) exceptions for a particular person or group—especially the person or group that holds the framework. In law, this principle of universal application requires that even those in positions of official power can be subjected to the same laws as pertain to their fellow citizens. In personal ethics, this principle requires that one should not act according to any rule that one would not wish to see universally followed. For example, one should not steal unless one would want to live in a world in which everyone was a thief. The philosopher [[Immanuel Kant]] formally described the principle of universality of application for one's motives in his [[categorical imperative]].

The concept of integrity implies a wholeness—a comprehensive corpus of beliefs often referred to as a [[worldview]]. This concept of wholeness emphasizes [[honesty]] and [[Authenticity (philosophy)|authenticity]], requiring that one act at all times in accordance with one's worldview.

Ethical integrity is not synonymous with the good, as Zuckert and Zuckert show about [[Ted Bundy]]:

{{blockquote|When caught, he defended his actions in terms of the [[fact-value distinction]]. He scoffed at those, like the professors from whom he learned the fact-value distinction, who still lived their lives as if there were truth-value to value claims. He thought they were fools and that he was one of the few who had the courage and integrity to live a consistent life in light of the truth that value judgments, including the command "Thou shalt not kill," are merely subjective assertions.|Zuckert and Zuckert|''The truth about [[Leo Strauss]]: political philosophy and American democracy''<ref>{{cite book|last1=Zuckert|first1=Catherine H.|author-link1=Catherine H. Zuckert|last2=Zuckert|first2=Michael P.|author-link2=Michael P. Zuckert|title=The truth about Leo Strauss: political philosophy and American democracy|year=2006|publisher=The University of Chicago Press|location=Chicago; London|isbn=978-0226993324|page=73|chapter=Strauss – Modernity – America|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=P-PpPtGojpoC&pg=PA73 }}</ref>}}