From: metahuman (hidden@lucifer.com)
Date: Wed Nov 12 2003 - 14:55:53 MST
Perception, perception, perception... ::)
The knight is a hypocrite for he has sworn allegiance to his lord yet has gone against his will. However, the knight is honorable (integrity) because he remains adherent to the Code of Chivalry which was esteemed far higher than allegiance to a particular lord.
I suppose by Kalkor's logic the soldier who enlists in the Marines and enters a warzone, saves the lives of his fellow soldiers against the orders of his commander is a man of little integrity. ::) Silly logic, Kalkor.
Your definition of "integrity", simul is incorrect in several ways. With your definition that integrity is merely "doing what you say", you are focusing on honesty and only honesty. It is this that I find the other members correct in their rationalization that your "integrity" is needless as the Sin of hypocrisy is present in the literature which covers "doing what you say." Of course, we can destroy your concept further by using my claim that language is a barrier as all language is merely representative of thoughts instead of exact thoughts thus all language is inaccurate. If all language is inaccurate, then each of us is without "integrity" and are all hypocrites for we have never done what we said we'll do as we have always meant something else however minute the difference.
Integrity is "a strong sense of honesty and morality; firmness of moral and ethical character." (www.wordsmyth.net) The knight who adheres to the Old Code above all else is a man with integrity. Should this knight say he will do one thing and then do another, then he is a hypocrite, yet if he is still adherent to the Old Code, he is still with integrity. If you are to assume that he is without integrity because he is hypocritical in his actions, then the question arises: is it right for one to deceive another if deception is key to success? For instance:
The knight is facing his enemy the sorcerer. The sorcerer demands that the knight swear allegiance to him. The knight does so. However, the knight later betrays that trust in order to attack the sorcerer's weakness. The knight deceived the sorcerer in order to succeed and perhaps save his lord from the wicked sorcerer.
In this scenario, the knight became a hypocrite in this contained context after he had broken his promise to the sorcerer for the good of himself and his lord. Yet he also remained honorable for he never faltered in his promise to himself or to his lord. His oath of the knight's Code had remaind intact.
Back to Kalkor's logic now that I have thought about this a bit more... Kalkor assumes that consistency and integrity are different enough to dilineate. They are not. Although according to simul, integrity is the opposite of hypocrisy which would make Kalkor right, however, simul's definition of integrity lacks correctness meaning that Kalkor's assertion is based on the false assumpton that simul's definition is correct.
Furthermore, an honorable man is consistent in all of his doings. However, consistency is not equivalent to constancy, meaning that in theory all Virians who _always_try_ to be Virtuous and without Sin are honorable. While we may err in our pursuit of consistency, we do not constantly err.
It also should be noted that Wordsmyth provides ample similar words for comparison. Virtue is a similar word to integrity.
---- This message was posted by metahuman to the Virus 2003 board on Church of Virus BBS. <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=29663> --- 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 : Wed Nov 12 2003 - 14:56:12 MST