Integrity
By
PFC W.
I understand that I am suppose to write an essay on the military standard of integrity and the like, but I have never been able to preach something justly if I doubt its plausibility. in other words, I do not believe I could possibly advocate such a conformed assortment of statutes that I do not even deem permissible due to it's lack of merciful diversity in design, which by itself is often corruptibly stipulated in presence though exploited in veil by exactly those whom demand it's recognition and submission to verbatim in it's entirety.
Be that as it may, I to can say that in mine own seemingly distorted yet fully justifiable sense have fashioned a more befitting underpinning of its connotation.
"Integrity: Do what's right legally and morally."
At present in a simpler disclosing, this quote of a staged valued scruple is commendable to where it is easily abided and adhered to. Although upon profound scrutiny the synchronism of "legal" and "moral" are contradictions in their placement. For instance; legal being a judicial law prohibiting the intrusion upon ones civil rights. Laws should be as few and as narrowly focused as possible with the standard being that laws simply do an adequate job of protecting citizens from harm. I believe that one should not act in a way that deprives others of their civil rights and that an action should be illegal if it does harm to others.
But what is the extent of harm? Suggestive comments, obscenities, vulgarities, or perhaps a radical life style? Do law makers know how you should live you life better than yourself? Should the government decide what's right and good for you? Do others have the right not to be offended? In the American context, is freedom more important than someone elses subjective preferences? Is the law the place to address any or all disagreements about what is proper behavior? When does the punishment for violating one of these laws not do more harm than the prohibited behavior? Is the law still right?
Then from a moral standing which affirms that one should not unnecessarily restrict the freedom of another. "Moral rights would be the rights to be treated in a certain way, regardless of whether there is any institutionalized system for enforcing them. To say that there are moral rights (e.g., that everyone has a right to life) is typically to make a normative moral statement about what claims people ought to have on each other (e.g., a claim not to be killed). It is possible to hold that people have moral rights even if there is no judicial foundation backing them up." To reference political journalist Alan G. Cranston. Cranston's criticism of the universal declaration of rights gives examples of civil and political rights as well as economic and social rights.
Accordingly, what are the significant differences between the traditional political and civil rights and the economic ands social rights? Universality, which is over all opinion of the masses at large correlating in unison on a single wave length, which in the military (that Ive experienced) means nothing unless your position or rank can influence. Paramount importance, unless there is a direct benefit or grasp of understanding. On part of the senior in your dilemma, you're guilty until proven guilty. And lastly, morally compelling versus a utopian aspiration, meaning that my input on the matter even after this essay still means nothing because our chain of command strictly enforces conformity to the degrees of totalitarianism.
What Im trying to say is that, put into retrospect, integrity is nothing more than an Arian ideal of what guidelines we should live our lives by. If I wanted that Id be religious. We should live idealistic scrupulous lives that directly benefit our fellow man and the overall ascension of our progression as a race. But not at the expense of conflicting morals and laws in order to infringe a mark in someone elses life.
SweetFuzz Community Member 
|
|
