- This topic has 1 reply, 2 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
On page 259 of OPAR Peikoff defines integrity as “loyality in action to one’s convictions and values”. But the heading above is “Integrity as Loyalty to Rational Principles” and on page 261 he states “Integrity means loyalty not to a whim or delusion, but to one’s knowledge, to the conclusions one can prove logically.” Objectivism rightly regards the concept of God as irrational. Does this mean it would consider Thomas Aquinas as lacking integrity since he was loyal to something which could not be proven logically? Similarly Jean Valjean from “Les Miserables” – someone whose actions were based on an irrational faith in God? I have thought of both as having integrity but irrational.Am I wrong?
Recall that the virtues are applications of rationality to narrower contexts; they are aspects of what rationality demands, and we separate them for ease of focus and study. The overarching virtue is rationality.
Both of your examples are of people whose basic mistake is belief in God, which means accepting the arbitrary on faith, which fundamentally undermines a person’s basic means of living. This, most definitely, is a vice, and its consequences could have ramifications in any area of one’s life, and thus on one’s ability to practice any virtue. Recall also that the virtues are distinguished by the area of reality on which they focus our attention. Although Aquinas and Valjean both lack integrity insofar as they fail to consistently act on rational principles, their basic error (and thus vice) is more fundamental; it’s that, in a crucial area of their lives, they act not on their own rational judgment but on faith in their feelings and the say-so of other people. That is, both fail to practice the virtue of independence. Because they don’t, they don’t adopt rational principles by which to act with integrity.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.