Forest Gump and Derek on: Integrity

 

Derek Veenstra

English 101 

Western Washington University           

October 27th 2005

           Integrity 

During an English 101 class my freshmen year of college I was engaged in a class discussion regarding integrity. The question we were trying to answer was; what does Integrity mean? When I was first asked to answer this question my initial response was to give the meaning of integrity in the terms of honesty. Honesty however as I would later find out has little if anything to do with integrity. Someone for example can be completely honest about their involvement in the Enron scandal yet by all means lacks integrity. These types of examples were elaborated on by Stephen L. Carter’s essay, The Insufficiency of Honesty where I came face to face with the realization that integrity is comprised of much more then honesty. However ways in which Carter’s essay elaborated on integrity, such as the important role that discernment plays in determining whether someone has integrity were not reasons that I had considered when I was first asked to define integrity or now after analyzing Carters essay deem appropriate. How is it that two people can use the same word integrity, yet have entirely different versions of what is being referred to? In this essay I will try to answer this question while injecting my own ideas into Carters definition of integrity. I will also try to give you, the reader a better definition of a simple word that has been used for generations yet not widely understood. 

  There are five tiny ants in a certain yard struggling to lift a dead grasshopper onto their backs and bring it back to their ant hill. Two brothers live in a nearby house; the first brother Paul sees the tiny ants and approaches them. Propping himself up by forming a pedestal with his hands he watches. After a few minutes he becomes bored and walks away leaving the ants in peace. Once he is gone his brother Tim comes to see what Paul had been watching. Tim sees the ants, thinks to himself for a few contemplative moments and then stomps his foot on top of the ants crushing them instantly. Which child would you say has more integrity? Without much of a doubt most would say Paul the first brother because he demonstrated as Stephen L. Carter referrers to as two of the six pillars of a good character, respect and caring. His brother Tim however I will argue posses little if no integrity but by Carters definition of integrity, Tim could have an equal amount of integrity to Paul. Why? Carter explains in his essay that one of his three steps to defining integrity is the use of discernment. He rambles on to explain, that one who has used discernment, testing his truth against another and found his “good, right, and true” posses integrity. However how do you find something to be “good, right, and true?” In the case of the two brothers and the ants something being right and true differs from each brother. In the case of the second brother, Tim used “keen, practical judgment,” the definition of discernment and considered the fact of the ant hill under his deck to which the ants he killed belonged to. This ant hill made eating outside a practical impossibility. Using this knowledge he disposed of the ants because for him it was a good and right thing to do. Deciding whether something is good and right however is much to open for interpretation and I believe a more plausible definition of integrity is connected to morality where a more common ground can be reached. 

Suppose a person grows up in a racial community. Their entire life they are taught to hate others that are not of their race. According to Carter someone can not have integrity if they follow only what they are told because they have not used discernment to find their own truth. Two objections to this however can be easily raised.  The first is that by Carters definition of integrity a racist as the one described above would need to question for themselves why racism is good or bad before they could be regarded to have integrity. Assume they go out into the world and through brief observations see an African American gang performing violent actions towards others and anther African American selling drugs on a corner. With these two observations they return to their home believing what they had been taught to be correct and continue to be a raciest. Obviously they have not given ample time to observe African Americans before labeling their entire race as thugs and druggies. Had they had spent more time in observation they would have found African Americans to be not so different from themselves.  According to Carter this raciest used discernment if only a little in finding that their racism beliefs were right and true so by Carters definition have integrity. However in the example above, the fact that racism is unmoral is sidestepped by the use of discernment.  The accusation posed by the racial community in this one case was right and true and yet it is unmoral to label African Americans as such. Granted that in most cases using more then partial discernment would lead you to the conclusion that this raciest posses no integrity however the fact can not be overlooked that by Carters definition a raciest could posses integrity.  To seal this puncture I have made in Carters definition I will base my definition of integrity on morality where a common ground can be reached. 

Everyone can agree that stealing is wrong; killing an innocent is wrong, loving your neighbor as yourself is good and lying is wrong.  Each of these has its exceptions for example in the movie Schindler’s List when a factory owner lies to the Germans, saving the lives of thousands of Jews. Schindler lied to the Germans however a lie in this manner is regarded by almost everyone as the morally correct thing to have done. Our common coherence to moral laws such as the one of lying I believe should be applied to the definition of integrity where not loving your neighbor as yourself a cornerstone of morals would immediately rule out the raciest to not have integrity. 

My second objection to Carters definition of integrity is in regards to the inability to have integrity by doing only what you are told.  A prime example of not thinking for yourself and doing actions only because they were taught is a fictional character named Forest Gump. Forest Gump was made up by Hollywood however the way in which he portrays absolute obedience to what he was taught by his mom is un questionable and can be used to illustrate my point. Forest Gump throughout his life does everything his mother taught him when he was a child. As his life progresses his intelligence hinders him from questioning his mother and finding his own truths and he continues to follow the values and advice his mother gave him. After finishing college he joins the Army to fight in Vietnam. When his platoon comes under attack by enemy fire and most of his platoon is wounded he risks his live and dives back into the maelstrom to save his friend Bubba and Lieutenant Dan. Carter would argue Forest Gump posses no integrity because he only goes back to save his friends because his mother taught him the virtue of unselfishness, which he has never questioned why it is a good thing.  But does a solider have no integrity because they throw their life into harms way, following orders without questioning whether what they are doing is good, right and true?  Following what you are told as long as it is on the common grounds of morality in the case of Forest Gump enables you to have integrity by my definition.

As all my examples have illustrated the definition of integrity wavers from person to person. Carter may argue that Abraham Lincoln has more integrity then Forest Gump because Lincolns intelligence allowed him to question and explore why racism and slavery was wrong where Forest Gump for exampled believed that blacks were equal to him because his momma told him so. I would argue however that Forest Gump posses more integrity then Carter gives him credit. How do we judge then whether someone posses more or less integrity then the other, does forest Gump posses 6.5 points of integrity and Lincoln 5.5? I believe there is no way to judge high and low levels of integrity, whether through point percentiles or any mathematical method. If faced with the fact of stealing to feed your family or paying with your hard earned money the answer is to pay and by paying you have integrity by my definition and by Carters even by Merriam Webster’s, Integrity, “firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values.” Whether you have high or low levels of integrity however can not be answered by this definition as argued above and depends on your more in depth definition of integrity such as Carters or mine. 

It's a Trap! The brutal service industry, on the front line of abuse.

 

The first job I got, where the money didn't come from my parents, was at the eager age of 13.  I took my love of soccer, became a ref, and made it my profession.  It was a great gig, I worked one day a week and only when I wanted to, basically I worked when I needed more cash to buy things I wanted, and yes I was paid in cash or check, tax free (this was in the 90's.

I started with the little guys, U6 4v4.  I had fun with it, blowing my whistle infrequently, more an arbiter ensuring the rules of the game were loosely followed, that everyone was having fun, and most importantly that parents stayed out of the game if they were overly negative.  It was here my education of de-escalation began and which I would later use in college, working in the dining hall and turning around a failing retail store called the Late Night Ridgeway Market.  We closed at 2am at Western Washington University, I'm sure you get the rest. 

So, why did I say the service industry is a trap?  It's a trap because 20% of American currently work in this industry and here's the gab, historically only 1 in 10 Americans retire from this same career path.  Most leave, and start other careers, but some don't.  Best of luck in your career path, as in the Return of Jedi, even a trap can be sprung.  

Here's a great follow on podcast talking about the history of the service industry in America. Enjoy

The land of the Fee

Total War waged by Roman Engineers and a few good soldiers

The Roman empire is the longest standing empire in history, over 1000 years which is quite an accomplishment. In fact, Pontius Pilate under the command of Julius Cesar's HQ in Rome was the one who allowed the crucifixion of Jesus, his subsequent death and resurrection 3 days later. 

Why the Romans were a very large empire, they didn't conqueror their enemies quickly or overnight like the speedy Monguls before them. The Romans were instead very much methodical, generation after generation. At their core the Romans were engineers and builders, they were also more cruel than anyone who came before or after them. Julius Cesar invented "Total War" when he invaded the Gauls, present day Germany. 

Total War is the idea you pull out all the stops, anything goes, and that meant anything. What Commodus did to Maximus's wife and child in the Oscar hit Gladiator is just a drop in the ocean. Eye for an eye is simple, Total War is more strategic and attempts to exploit any weakness against your enemy, his family, his home, his county, and his dignity as an example to others to stay in line. The idea is you make war more painful for your enemy so they typically give up before any spears are thrown and thus become subjugated and members of the Roman Empire. 

Since the Romans were always outnumbered, they had to scrappy. Julius Cesar was the most refined of them all as he conquered all present day Germany & France occupied by the mighty Gauls. The Gauls were in fact, Rome's mortal enemies having sacked Rome BC 410 and again in years past.  

So where does all this lead? I live in America and we do not engage in total war even though we could. We have the best weapons and a huge defense budget rivaled by none. But America has learned a better way.  America believes in protecting freedom of all humans around the world, regardless of their social status or creed, we do not aim to kill innocents and civilians. We protect the downtrodden and let their people judge them such as Saddam Hussein. 

 In closing, since the Romans were always outnumbered that had to win in other ways, and those ways were very cruel, sometimes called worse than barbaric. They did however quite literally pave the way for future generations and hope that history would not repeat itself.  

To learn more and a good podcast in the car or office, Dan Carlin and Elon Musk discuss an Engineers War and the Romans way of doing things or Google EP17 Engineering Victory with Elon.