Organizational ethical integrity: good and bad illusions

Abstract

Integrity has always been an ambiguous or vague concept. Integrity as a general concept seems to be too problematic in philosophical or scientific language. This paper will aim to improve and preserve the specific notion of integrity-the concept of moral integrity as a virtue and as a moral purpose, and its opposite-the concept of counterfeit moral integrity or false moral integrity. It stresses a strong relationship between the concepts of morality and the concept of moral integrity: if moralities are diverse, moral integrity has many forms too, and the forms are only as good as the morality behind them. The paper emphasizes their organizational dimensions because any organizational impact-due to its scale-can be especially beneficial or detrimental to society. The first objective is to introduce a preliminary conceptual order by means of definitions and typologies to support clearer (language analysis) and more critical (Critical Theory) thinking on organizational moral integrity: establishing definitions of moral and ethical integrity, new definitions of material and formal moral integrity, descriptions of irrational and rational moral integrit, and individual and organizational moral integrity. The definitions and typologies are designed to be prototypes of false integrity "detectors". The second objective is to outline an ideal of a total and rational moral commitment for every organization: organizational material ethical integrity (OMEI). The ideal of OMEI points out that most self-proclaimed ethical organizations are probably not ethically committed. The third objective is to justify the theses that (1) moral integrity can be good or bad, not simply good, and that (2) false moral integrity can be good. Whether we think of "Kantian-Nazi" integrity of Adolf Eichmann or lethal and irrational integrity of Islamic State fighters, moral integrity based on bad morality is bad. False ethical integrity (or rational moral integrity) is always bad because it imitates good morality for a bad purpose, for example: rational discourse on integrity can be a "smokescreen" to hide exploitation of labor or environmental degradation. As in the case with Irena Sendler who pretended to be "a good slave" to save children's lives, false moral integrity can be ethically good if it simulates bad morality for a good purpose. The paper offers ethical justifications for "ethical prestidigitators", "warriors of illusions", masters of "moral aikido": persons and organizations that use counterfeit integrity to maximize ethical values.

The Outline of Communal ‘Ars Moriendi’ in Egalitarian Transhumanism

“…better. Transhumanist ars moriendi aims to overcome traditional painful, class-ridden, superstitious human dying and move toward something post-human, using modern knowledge, technology and art.My proposal for the transhumanist art of dying is based on the metaethical foundations I began developing in my previous articles (Polowczyk 2017(Polowczyk , 2019: consequentialism, the matrix of three main ethical values, and the three principles of maximizing values. This pluralist version of consequentialism states that not only happiness (well-being or utility) should be taken into consideration, but also (at least) freedom and justice.…”

“…This worldwide prohibition is based on ideologies and false images of reality that serve the interests of privileged social classes. Psychedelics were strictly linked with the 1960s The Outline of Communal 'Ars Moriendi' morality is rational" (Polowczyk 2017). The use of entheogens and high-tech body-mind extensions in the process of dying is not necessarily in contradiction with material moral integrity.…”

“…Material ethical integrity is in harmony with illusions and appearances. False moral integrity (e.g., the illusion of the Nazi moral integrity) as a defensive camouflage is able to help real ethical integrity (the story of Irena Sendler) (see Polowczyk 2017). Illegal or condemned entheogens or high-tech tools (let's say made by hackers or biohackers) are ethically acceptable in (the alternative) communal art of dying whenever they bring more freedom to those who pass away and do not harm the freedom of the living.…”

Integrity and Its counterfeits: implications for economy, business and management

“…This seems to be a conceptual dilemma. Further complicating this dilemma are the facts that integrity can be immoral or amoral if it does not stick to a moral code, that moral integrity can be unethical if it sticks to a bad moral code, and that false moral integrity can be good if it imitates bad morality for a good purpose (see Polowczyk, 2017, in…”

“…Little have been done to address the vagueness and paradoxicality of integrity and the shadow realities of integrity such as non-integrity, pseudo-integrity and fake integrity. The thematic collection, which this paper complements, aims to make contributions towards filling the gap between the abstract concept of integrity and its application into business and economy, with a particular attention to the ambiguous, equivocal and diverse meanings of the concept, the complex and dynamic practicality of integrity, and the grey and dark areas of business out of integrity (Robinson, 2016b;Schwartz, 2016;Bauman, 2017;Jagiello-Rusilowski, 2017;Kuokkanen, 2017;Polowczyk, 2017). In what follows, we highlight some key areas of debate and emerging avenues of discussion, which serve as exemplars to draw wider attentions to the subject and stimulate more interests in this research area.…”