Abstract
As part of its evolving notions of self, contemporary Western culture has come to regard integrity as a preeminent public and private virtue. The meanings now given to integrity appear to cluster around its form, which is personal coherence, and its content, which is standing for something important. Building on Stephen Carter's explication of integrity, and in response to its veneration as a moral panacea, three limitations of integrity are discussed. First, integrity does not guarantee that right and wrong have actually been discerned, only that an attempt has been made, that moral reflection has occurred. Second, integrity does not necessarily engender or even preserve interpersonal peace, but instead frequently causes conflict it is then unable to resolve. Third, integrity does not always precipitate or prevent the reform of social structures and organizations, because it remains subject to the exercise of interpersonal power.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
