CHAPTER II - THE NEED FOR INTEGRITY
Every community in the United States, and most governments of the world, have come to the realization that they need certain guidelines for the construction of buildings. Most have assembled knowledgeable people into departments that review and approve building plans and the subsequent construction based upon those plans. Architects, designers, contractors and engineers are but a few of the many trained personnel necessary to insure the structural integrity of both private and public buildings. The larger and higher the edifice, the greater the need for a sound structural framework to maintain its integrity. The more people the building is designed to accommodate, the more exacting the building codes that define its structural integrity.
There was a great deal of interest in the structural integrity, or lack thereof, of the Twin Towers of New York after terrorists flew airliners into the buildings September 11, 2001. If the buildings had been designed differently, it is possible that they would not have collapsed and many lives would have been spared. Many design engineers have reviewed the strengths and weaknesses of those two edifices in order to avoid a similar disaster in the future. There also appeared to have been breaches in the flow of intelligence information which may, or may not, have averted the terrorist attacks. Various governmental security agencies were isolated one from the other and this hindered the assembly of pieces of information that might have waved a red flag ahead of time and, quite possibly, may have saved multiplied hundreds of lives.
As was mentioned before, the space shuttle Columbia would have brought its precious cargo home safely had there been the structural integrity to dissipate and withstand the heat of atmospheric re-entry. It suffered a similar weakness in its make up to the infamous sea going cruise ship Titanic. That “unsinkable” luxury liner broke apart after hitting an ice berg and many, many lives were lost. It was just a simple lack of structural integrity coupled with the over confidence of Captain and crew.
When New Orleans was hit with the force and fury of hurricane Katrina in 2005, the safety of its inhabitants rested heavily upon the structural integrity of the dikes that held the sea at bay. Unfortunately, the wind driven waters had more force than the old dirt levy’s could withstand and gaping holes allowed great volumes of water to flow into the basin like area in which the people of New Orleans lived. Contributing to the problem was that the original integrity of the surrounding area, which would have slowed the winds and provided drainage for the vast amounts of water, had been breached by land developers eager to profit from low priced swamp lands. Acres of trees were removed and houses and businesses were built on land fill without thought to the proper drainage and wind breaks needed to withstand such a powerful storm.
As surely as there needs to be a strong framework for a building, a sea going vessel, an airplane, a bridge, tunnel or dike, there needs to be a structural framework for a community of people. This structure is not a physical structure so much as it is an ethically moral structure that holds a society together against every one of the storms of life.
According to lawyer, theologian and preacher, Charles Grandison Finney, No community, or group of people:
. . . can perfectly harmonize in all their views and feelings, without perfect knowledge, or to say the least, the same degree of knowledge on all subjects on which they are called to act. But no community ever existed, or will exist, in which all possess exactly the same amount of knowledge, and where the members are, therefore, entirely agreed in all their thoughts, views, and opinions. But if they are not agreed in opinion, or have not exactly the same amount of knowledge, they will not, in every thing, harmonize, as it respects their courses of conduct. There must, therefore, be in every community, some standard or rule of duty, to which all the subjects of the community are to conform themselves. There must be some head or controlling mind, whose will shall be law, and whose decision shall be regarded as infallible, by all the subjects of the government. However diverse their intellectual attainments are, in this they must all agree, that the will of the lawgiver is right, and universally the rule of duty. This will must be authoritative, and not merely advisory. There must of necessity be a penalty attached to, and incurred by, every act of disobedience to this will. If disobedience be persisted in, exclusion from the privileges of the government is the lowest penalty that can consistently be inflicted. The good, then, of the universe imperiously requires that there should be a moral governor. Government must be founded in a good and sufficient reason, or it is not right. No one has a right to prescribe rules for, and control the conduct of another, unless there is some good reason for his doing so. There must be a necessity for moral government, or the administration of it is tyranny. Moral government is indispensable to the highest well-being of the universe of moral agents. The universe is dependent upon this as a means of securing the highest good. This dependence is a good and sufficient reason for the existence of moral government. Let it be understood, then, that moral government is a necessity of moral beings, and therefore right.1With his insight in mind, we must consider that our very nature and circumstances demand that every group of people should be under some form of moral government in order for them to live together harmoniously. The question that recurrently arises in the minds of many is, who or what establishes the ethical basis for this government? If one is not willing to accept that there is a God who created all that we have knowledge of and even all that we do not yet have an awareness of, it makes the critical need for an absolute rule of order an ideal that is virtually impossible.
Why, exactly, do we need moral integrity? What, exactly, is moral integrity? Can there be individual integrity without a moral basis?
There is no possibility of the successful development of a society without a common value system to order the daily affairs of its members. It simply cannot withstand the pressures or heat that it must move through any more than the could the Titanic or the Columbia. Even if there are only two individuals, there must be a set of ground rules by which one may relate to the other. In fact, an individual cannot function alone without a certain sense of purpose and worth. In other words, there must be a proper sense of being and adequate rules to live by. Recognizing this basic human need brings us face to face with the need to question who, or what, has the right to mandate or decree a set of moral values that could be the framework or basis of integrity? Is mankind left to itself to develop and establish such a critical framework for interpersonal relationships, or is there someone who holds the right to hold the plumb line from which all society might gain direction?
We cannot speak of being moral without believing that there might be an absolute standard of behavior that would qualify a person as being moral or immoral. If, as we read in Chapter One, integrity is partially defined as, the quality of having strong moral principles, then morality must be defined to the degree that all people within a given community could agree as to the absoluteness of its standard. And if we understand being moral to mean being concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior, the goodness or badness of human character, and adhering to a code of behavior that is considered right or acceptable, or a standard of behavior, a principle of right and wrong, then we begin to see the need for an established and accepted norm of moral values.
Reverend James Robison, in his article, Defining Evil, distributed in August, 2006 observes the following concerning this very thought:
There is much in our world that doesn’t make sense. Today, we discover another plot to commit mass murder. Tomorrow, someone will try to justify it. Just when logic and wisdom tell you that something is right or wrong, a whole hoard of voices tries to convince you differently.
Hezbollah shattered the fragile peace between Lebanon and Israel by crossing an internationally-recognized border to kill and capture Israelis, then began a rocket attack that has surpassed 2,000 launches in three weeks, yet the United Nations condemns Israel for a “disproportionate response.” Islamo-fascists have routinely rioted, bombed and terrorized Europe, yet many Europeans view America as the greatest threat to world peace.
Domestically, millions of living human beings have been killed while still in the womb, yet those opposing abortion are labeled as oppressors of liberty. Homosexual activists continue to impose their sex acts upon a nation that prefers monogamous, heterosexual families, while blasting defenders of marriage as “radicals” and “hate mongers.”
When former President George W. Bush vetoed a bill to fund embryonic stem cell experiments on moral grounds (instead favoring more advanced, alternate stem cell research), Iowa Senator Tom Harkin viciously attacked him for standing up for his convictions. “He is vetoing it because he says he believes it is immoral,” Harkin said. “Mr. President, you are not our moral Ayatollah — maybe the president, nothing more.”
Apparently, possessing any sense of right and wrong makes you the most radical of extremists. If that’s the case, then count me in. I do believe in right and wrong, good and evil. (And what’s with the phrase “maybe the president?” Does Harkin still view Al Gore as “the real president?”)
Everyone wants to claim the moral high ground, but who determines which way is up? What is right and what is wrong? Is it larger than the individual person, or do we each decide what is right in our own eyes?
To determine right and wrong, we need to start with some absolutes: what is evil and what is good. Here are a few thoughts and examples. There are many more.
a. Goodness values life. Evil destroys it.
b. Goodness protects innocence. Evil exploits it.
c. Goodness regrets the loss of innocent human life. Evil dances in the streets in celebration.
d. Goodness seeks reconciliation. Evil never forgets and certainly never forgives.
e. Goodness shares the blessings of wealth and abundance. Evil hides and hordes it.
f. Goodness honors truth and justice. Evil rewards deceit and tyranny.
g. Goodness tears down evil in order to rebuild a better society. Evil targets goodness in order to create chaos.
h. Goodness produces prosperity. Evil results in poverty.
i. Goodness enables common people to reach their full potential. Evil subjugates all people to prevent any success.
j. Goodness finds cures to diseases that plague mankind. Evil releases disease to annihilate populations.
k. Goodness expresses heaven on earth. Evil brings hell.
As we debate the merits of various social policies and political positions, we must return to absolute truth to evaluate our decisions. We all like to think of ourselves as “right,” but at the same time, are we “good?”
Most of the West is “great” because the people are “good.” If we fail to hold to goodness, we risk falling prey to all kinds of evil
