# Is there a fundamental difference between morality and integrity?



## isn't anything (Apr 6, 2017)

I see the two lumped together often but I think they're vastly different.


----------



## LittleDreamer (Dec 11, 2016)

Hmmm very interesting topic! I'm personally not too sure but Im curious to see what others have to say.


----------



## Parrot (Feb 22, 2015)

I'd say it's square:rectangle::integrity:morals.

Integrity is a part of morality, but morality includes more than just integrity.


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

I think that integrity is an indicator of having a strong moral compass.


----------



## vhaydenlv (May 3, 2017)

To me, morality is knowing what's wrong or right in general.
Integrity is being consistent about your own values.


----------



## Endologic (Feb 14, 2015)

Morality is one's own values.

Integrity is one's respect for other's values.

(If you ask me, at least.)


----------



## Finny (Jul 17, 2015)

Morality is subjective - what you value, what you think is the right thing to do, how you think one should behave, etc...

Integrity is based upon social construct's version of morality that says be honest enough but not too honest where you're not kind, recongize how well you do something enough to continue to do so, but be humble when people ask you .... etc, it's kinda middle ground of being a person which most people can find "good" - exuding moderatcy, let's say.


----------



## Allonsy (Mar 30, 2017)

Integrity denotes wholeness, right? So when used with moral it means you have a whole moral system.


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

> integrity
> ɪnˈtɛɡrɪti
> noun
> 
> 1.the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles.





> morality
> məˈralɪti
> noun
> principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.


The slight difference is, in my opinion;

Morality: _"this is why x is right but y is wrong"_
Integrity: _"I know this is right/wrong", "I will be honest because that is the right thing to do"_

But ultimately they are the same thing, because they're both linked to having a strong moral compass.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

pearlydewdrops said:


> I see the two lumped together often but I think they're vastly different.


I think morality is more extrinsically motivated whereas integrity is more intrinsically motivated.


----------



## Winter Queen (May 16, 2017)

Wisteria said:


> The slight difference is, in my opinion;
> 
> Morality: _"this is why x is right but y is wrong"_
> Integrity: _"I know this is right/wrong", "I will be honest because that is the right thing to do"_
> ...


I prefer Webster's definitions, personally.



> Definition of integrity
> 1: firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values : incorruptibility
> 2: an unimpaired condition : soundness
> 3: the quality or state of being complete or undivided : completeness





vhaydenlv said:


> To me, morality is knowing what's wrong or right in general.
> Integrity is being consistent about your own values.


Exactly, so technically a villain could have integrity, like a hitman who would die before killing a child. Honor among thieves is a kind of integrity. To me it's holding tight to your personal values and convictions regardless of external pressures.


----------



## Jest_Please (Aug 26, 2016)

Morality is generally described as having a set of strong moral principles, but integrity would be actually standing by them and going through with them despite any adversity or controversy that may arise.

So even though they're different in principle, there definitely could be a large area of overlap. Some people's moral principles stand on integrity.


----------



## hahahalessandra (Jul 13, 2016)

Jest_Please said:


> Morality is generally described as having a set of strong moral principles, but integrity would be actually standing by them and going through with them despite any adversity or controversy that may arise.
> 
> So even though they're different in principle, there definitely could be a large area of overlap. Some people's moral principles stand on integrity.


These are pretty much my exact thoughts. Having a good sense of morality is simply discerning right from wrong, while having integrity is always standing by and putting your morals into action.


----------



## soop (Aug 6, 2016)

Morality is having principles, integrity is holding yourself to them.


----------



## Ghosties (Sep 7, 2014)

They can be separated or tied in together, but a moral person will not always be true to their morals

Example: conservative politician talks about god and how important it is to follow the bible and states principles as their moral compass, but has extramaritial affairs and takes bribes out of the public view

Despite their morality, they're not sincere in them

Morals are often seen as a person's principles, usually declared by they themselves

Or, let's say, a villain in a TV show who is a strong chaotic neutral declares they'll do anything to get their way. They kidnap some people, hold them for ransom, maybe blow up a few buildings.

While their morals are questionable, their integrity is there. 
So the difference is saying vs doing

Doing is the integrity--it's practicing what you preach.


----------



## tinyheart (Jun 17, 2016)

Morals are values.

Integrity is keeping to your values when no one is looking.

Morals are ideas.

Integrity is action.

Learned this in Sunday School as a kid.


----------



## Heavelyn (Oct 24, 2015)

person with good morals vs the one with good integrity
integrity is when people true to themselves, thay can for example think that's ok do do immoral stuff like having sex with different people while being married, or kill kids
and now they know that they feel it's ok and act upon that 
Moral person is the one who has good morals * er - socially accepted and maybe praised ones * and acts upon that
For me of course


----------



## Mr. Meepers (May 31, 2012)

A lot of people here have good and interesting points. Here is how I will define it:

A moral person: Someone who tries to do what they deem as "right"/""good" in an altruistic manner. I.e. For instance becoming healthier may be "good" (it does not hurt anyone else and it benefits the one getting healthier) but it is usually not considered altruistic, so it is morally neutral. There are times where two moral interests may compete and a moral person will have to weigh out the two (or more) competing moral values in order to optimize the most good for all while doing the least harm. Because of this, morals may not always fit a code, per say.

An ethical person: Someone who abides by a rules or law established for a group or society to obey. Examples would be a lawful person or someone who abides by the "Engineers Code of Conduct".

A person with Integrity: A person who abides by a code of conduct either for a sake of honor or with a sense of honor. At least part of the reason a person abides by said code of conduct is done out of personal pride/honor.


----------



## Endologic (Feb 14, 2015)

Wisteria said:


> The slight difference is, in my opinion;
> 
> Morality: _"this is why x is right but y is wrong"_
> Integrity: _"I know this is right/wrong", "I will be honest because that is the right thing to do"_
> ...


According to that, morality resides inside of integrity. Integrity is the house, while morality is the person who lives in it.


----------



## Hei (Jul 8, 2014)

As others have said Morality has relativity to it. While an argument can be made for universal morality, what is deemed moral has long depended on culture, nationality, religion / philosophical ideology, individual beliefs formed from experiences, and historical period. 

I would say possessing Integrity is at its core upholding/consciously adhering to a set of morals/principles/values.


----------



## Handsome Dyke (Oct 4, 2012)

The two are very different. Morality is (the abstract form of) the subject of integrity; one has integrity _with respect_ to some morality by behaving in accordance with that morality. One cannot have integrity without some idea of what she ought to do or not do.


----------



## WintersFlame (Nov 18, 2016)

The fundamental difference is

Integrity is your own sense of what's right and wrong, your definition of it. Morality is more ethical and concerns more of a harmonious outlook/people-centered approach.


----------



## Nephandus (May 16, 2017)

Moral right and moral wrong, aside from being circular, are meaningless outside the assumption of a morality. They have no meta-ethical basis, despite true believers banging on (nothing) and hurling threats. Also, subjective values are axiological, a word which even the (un)professional philosophy circle-jerk seem to've forgotten in their rush to replace the theologians, if not become the new priest caste, which they're losing to the shrinks. Ethics isn't the expansive deal people think, but that's where the propaganda goes, which is ironic given the obvious reliance on aesthetics, instead. Integrity's mostly a weasel word in practice, like civility, which just means being a citizen (of a city), which is a perfect 1984 word embedded right in Oldspeak.
c. 1400, "innocence, blamelessness; chastity, purity," from Old French integrité or directly from Latin integritatem (nominative integritas) "soundness, wholeness, completeness," figuratively "purity, correctness, blamelessness," from integer "whole" (see integer). Sense of "wholeness, perfect condition" is mid-15c.


----------



## UberY0shi (Nov 24, 2016)

Morality: Personal sense of right and wrong
Integrity: What you're likely to do when nobody is looking.


----------



## diMaggio (Apr 27, 2011)

IMO, integrity only concerns itself with whether I follow moral principles that I claim to have.
But it doesn't define what those moral principles _are_.

In my view morality does not exist intrinsically in the universe without someone defining a moral code.
Different people follow different moral codes. None is more correct than another.
You could argue that whatever is universally accepted (by a society) as a moral rule ought to be considered correct by everyone.
But in the end it's not necessarily _correct_, it's just agreed upon consensus.

Imagine a world dominated by rapists.
If the consensus of everyone were that raping is morally good, then that would be the common moral code.
And most people of that society would say that it is "good".
That might clash with some other people's opinion, but they would be in the minority.

Every rapist of that society who would claim to follow this moral code and who actually does, would have integrity under that moral code.

*tl;dr*
morality = agreed upon rules that measure if actions further a certain goal ("good") or hinder it ("bad")
integrity = claiming to follow a moral code and actually doing it (i.e. his behaviour "holds together", thus is intact or _integer_)


----------

