Do we sacrifice integrity for convenience?

Answer 1

All too often, I'm afraid. As a "satisfaction now" kind of society that we have become, we rarely give a thought as to what is right or wrong anymore. Thus, convenience becomes our priority. Sad...but true.

Answer 2

Most modern ethics in practice is based on convenience. It is convenient to execute a condemned prisoner because of the expense of keeping him alive the rest of his life. It is convenient to have an abortion to avoid the responsibility of having a child. It is convenient to not take responsibility for children men father. It is convenient to make promises to get elected knowing full well that they would be impossible to fulfill.

These are just a few instances of where convenience dictates what we do but it is pervasive in all cultures and societies. It simply means that we seek the least expense in money and time to accomplish our desires, goals, or things we seek to avoid.

What it implies is that it is somewhat silly to hold humans up to inconvenient or impossible standards.

Answer 3

Could we sacrifice convenience for integrity? Did you want to bet your life? Did you want to bet an others life? What exchange value does convenience have? Where does our integrity come from?

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/sl/slobject.htm#SL205n_1

'Teleological observations on things often proceed from a well-meant wish to display the wisdom of God as it is especially revealed in nature. Now in thus trying to discover final causes for which the things serve as means, we must remember that we are stopping short at the finite, and are liable to fall into trifling reflections: as, for instance, if we not merely studied the vine in respect of its well-known use for man, but proceeded to consider the cork-tree in connection with the corks which are cut from its bark to put into the wine-bottles. Whole books used to be written in this spirit. It is easy to see that they promoted the genuine interest neither of religion nor of science. External design stands immediately in front of the idea: but what thus stands on the threshold often for that reason is least adequate.'

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hl/hl631.htm#HL3_641

'(c) The Infinite Judgment
§ 1382

The negative judgment is as little a true judgment as the positive. But the infinite judgment which is supposed to be its truth is, according to its negative expression, negatively infinite, a judgment in which even the form of judgment is set aside. But this is a nonsensical judgment. It is supposed to be a judgment, and consequently to contain a relation of subject and predicate; yet at the same time such a relation is supposed not to be in it. Though the name of the infinite judgment usually appears in the ordinary logics, it is not altogether clear what its nature really is. Examples of negatively infinite judgments are easily obtained: determinations are negatively connected as subject and predicate, one of which not only does not include the determinateness of the other but does not even contain its universal sphere; thus for example spirit is not red, yellow, etc., is not acid, not alkaline, etc., the rose is not an elephant, the understanding is not a table, and the like. These judgments are correct or true, as the expression goes, but in spite of such truth they are nonsensical and absurd. Or rather, they are not judgments at all. A more realistic example of the infinite judgment is the evil action. In civil litigation, something is negated only as the property of the other party, it being conceded that it should be theirs if they had the right to it; and it is only the title of right that is in dispute; the universal sphere of right is therefore recognised and maintained in that negative judgment. But crime is the infinite judgment which negates not merely the particular right, but the universal sphere as well, negates right as right. This infinite judgment does indeed possess correctness, since it is an actual deed, but it is nonsensical because it is related purely negatively to morality which constitutes its universal sphere.'

Answer 4

Most are born into the conditioning of convenience and fight fiercely for the luxury of , " Integrity".

Answer 5

If your reference to "Integrity" is ethical integrity, never, at least not consciously. I've never considered convenience to be more beneficial to me than attempting to be ethical.

Answer 6

The vulgar man does. The noble man does not.

Answer 7

Yes we do. I guess is human nature.

Answer 8

Often.

Answer 9

And that's their life, sadly hard

Answer 10

on a daily basis.