Guest *Ste***cque** Report post Posted July 8, 2014 Most people might say in order to have "personal integrity" you just need to be true to yourself and live in accordance with your beliefs. Free choice means we get to decide our own beliefs and whether we are consistent in following them. My beliefs may not be the same as your beliefs and in a civil society that is allowed. The obvious caveat to any belief system being not to cause any intentional harm to another. If seeing SP's is not harming them or anyone in your life and it's something you feel conforms to your beliefs, who am I to say it's wrong(Btw, I'm not). The problem though is we are so willing to rationalize our beliefs to get what we want as opposed to what is right. While most non-sociopaths have an innate sense of right and wrong, the rewards of rationalizing our beliefs are usually financial benefit or some other personal advantage, not to mention that doing what's right can have a personal cost. Add to this our weak wills and love of comfort and I too wonder about personal integrity thriving in this world. It helps to have a personal code that really resonates with you even if its as simple as the golden rule. The simpler it is the more likely you stick with it, even in adversity. Not to mention that "if you stand for nothing, you'll fall for everything". Doing what's right may cost you but it makes the world a better place for others. All you may get out of it is a good feeling... and personal integrity. Is that enough? If not, there's always karma. :) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
roamingguy 300291 Report post Posted July 8, 2014 Trudeau did not say they must be pro-abortion. He said pro-choice. There is a difference. Does anyone else see an irony here. Trudeau won't give his MP's members the freedom of choice between voting anti abortion and pro choice. They must be pro choice...well vote pro choice. Liberal MPs have no choice but to be pro choice Just seems ironic that's all RG 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LeeRichards 177238 Report post Posted July 8, 2014 Once it is legal ... we can shmoke a doobie and discuss this difference and giggle a bit I recon. ;) Hi Lee : once what is legal? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gc1968 2033 Report post Posted July 8, 2014 The way I see personal integrity is that you will make decisions and abide by your beliefs or what you feel is right at the given moment you are faced with a decision. Most of us are constantly learning or getting new information about things, so therefore our opinions and beliefs can change with each new piece of information. If someone seemingly contradicts an earlier statement or belief it doesn't necessarily mean they have no integrity, it may simply mean they have gotten some new information that has caused them to see things differently, or change what they believe. They may also face a choice in which there is no option that allows them to be perfectly true to their beliefs, so they are forced to choose the option closest to what they believe, even if that may appear to an outsider as them going against what the outsider has perceived that person's beliefs to be. The other thing to think of is this: many people seem to link personal integrity with morality. Morality is something altogether different than personal integrity in my opinion. If someone is completely self-centred and only believes in doing what is best for themselves even at the expense of others, and then makes decisions based on that, it doesn't mean they have no integrity. If they are consistent in always doing this, even while hurting others, they are still acting on their convictions, therefore they still have personal integrity. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MightyPen 67414 Report post Posted July 8, 2014 Most of us are constantly learning or getting new information about things, so therefore our opinions and beliefs can change with each new piece of information. If someone seemingly contradicts an earlier statement or belief it doesn't necessarily mean they have no integrity, it may simply mean they have gotten some new information that has caused them to see things differently, or change what they believe. That's a really important point, and worth reinforcing. Some people think that strength of character comes from choosing a position and sticking to it no matter what. But in fact the real strength is in knowing why you have chosen a position, and being open to revising your position when that foundation changes. That's a lot harder than being blindly stubborn. That said, though, there are other factors that can constrain our freedom to act on new information. Among other things: once you've made a promise to do something, you need to have an exceptionally good reason not to follow through. This can lead to a politician acting against his personal conscience yet serving what he sees as a greater good; and he'd still have personal integrity. It's all about your frame of reference when evaluating people's behaviour. Overall: I think personal integrity involves being true both to yourself AND to the people to whom you've made commitments (whether they're family, friends, partners, colleagues...). As a result, I'm slow to make promises... but I (almost) always keep the ones that I do make. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lipualipua 4704 Report post Posted July 9, 2014 Thanks, Lee, for your response. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rysard 110 Report post Posted July 9, 2014 Lots of good rhetoric in this thread but I like the KISS principle - whenever you make a decision/do something that you feel good about inside about it, you are true to your personal integrity. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kathryn Bardot 99339 Report post Posted July 9, 2014 Does anyone else see an irony here. Trudeau won't give his MP's members the freedom of choice between voting anti abortion and pro choice. They must be pro choice...well vote pro choice. Liberal MPs have no choice but to be pro choiceJust seems ironic that's all RG RG, being pro-choice can also be choosing not to have an abortion, personally. It can be not believing in it yourself, but recognizing that we are all individuals from different backgrounds that have different life events, and we should have the ability to make our own choices. I would love for there never to be a reason for abortion, but that is not realistic. Being anti-choice (or anti-abortion) is taking a choice away from someone. Being pro-choice means giving people the tools and information they need to make an informed decision that is best for them. 5 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
roamingguy 300291 Report post Posted July 9, 2014 RG, being pro-choice can also be choosing not to have an abortion, personally. It can be not believing in it yourself, but recognizing that we are all individuals from different backgrounds that have different life events, and we should have the ability to make our own choices. I would love for there never to be a reason for abortion, but that is not realistic. Being anti-choice (or anti-abortion) is taking a choice away from someone. Being pro-choice means giving people the tools and information they need to make an informed decision that is best for them. Kathryn I absolutely agree and understand that. My comment was more directed at Trudeau directing his MP's having to vote pro choice in the House of Commons I just found it ironic I guess that for someone forcing his MP's to vote pro choice, he has taken a vote choice (pro choice versus anti abortion) away from his MP's which is anti choice. You have no choice but to vote pro choice is anti choice, in a democratic sense Does that make sense??? It seems clear in my brain, but then again that doesn't say much LOL The one thing I don't understand about all of this, votes like this (abortion issue) also others (like capital punishment) have been deemed votes of conscience and they aren't considered confidence votes, so why the need for party solidarity on them to begin with? Anyhow, hopefully a clarification RG :-) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kathryn Bardot 99339 Report post Posted July 9, 2014 KathrynI absolutely agree and understand that. My comment was more directed at Trudeau directing his MP's having to vote pro choice in the House of Commons I just found it ironic I guess that for someone forcing his MP's to vote pro choice, he has taken a vote choice (pro choice versus anti abortion) away from his MP's which is anti choice. You have no choice but to vote pro choice is anti choice, in a democratic sense Does that make sense??? It seems clear in my brain, but then again that doesn't say much LOL The one thing I don't understand about all of this, votes like this (abortion issue) also others (like capital punishment) have been deemed votes of conscience and they aren't considered confidence votes, so why the need for party solidarity on them to begin with? Anyhow, hopefully a clarification RG :-) Sorry, it still doesn't, to me. An MP is supposed to represent his/her constituency, so for them to vote pro-choice is giving a voice to ALL of their constituents. Don't believe in abortion? Don't have one. Pro-choice encompasses ALL of those options, including parenting and adoption. Anti-choice seems to forget that part. And really... if the MP wants to govern the female body that badly, they should probably be representing the Conservatives ;) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MightyPen 67414 Report post Posted July 9, 2014 (edited) You have no choice but to vote pro choice is anti choice, in a democratic sense. I getcha, RG. You're simply observing that "You have no choice but to vote for choice!" is weird, and that's all. As to why a party might enforce a single position regarding "choice" -- well you already know that. This is such a core platform issue that the party must take a stand as part of its political identify, even if its members vary so much that some may have different personal opinions on the matter. And as an aside, this goes back to my own point in the thread: MPs are beholden not just to a) their personal consciences, but to b) their constituents who voted for them as members of a particular party and its platform, not just for their personal qualities, and c) that party to which they belong and which has a certain political identity and can therefore make demands of them and expect their instructions to be followed. Integrity is a balancing act about duties to all three. Edited July 10, 2014 by MightyPen clarity 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
