integrity

You are the hostage to the things you say.

You must have your own moral codes / internal yardstick which you trying to hold on to others.

誠信正直，專指職業上的道德。

Personal Traits

「直話直說」
「說到做到」
「言行合一」
「嚴格執行」
「以身作則」

若不輕信，故人不負我。若不輕許，故我不負人。

From Edward Packard’s Nine Things I Learned In Ninety Year

In her book Self-Constitution: Agency, Identity, and Integrity (2009) Harvard philosopher Christine Korsgaard draws on Kant’s and Aristotle’s philosophy to make a case for self-constitution — being “consistent, unified, and whole”— having “integrity.” Korsgaard says that to be good at being a person, you need to be committed to acting in accord with what Kant called “a universal law,” for which I would substitute “a virtuous moral framework.” How is that constructed? A strand of thought in philosophy asserts that moral precepts can’t be scientifically established — they are indicia of the ways of thinking of particular cultures or religions. Arrayed against this dismal take on our need for guidance are propositions in the “we hold these truths to be self-evident” category, basic principles like, what causes or tends to cause misery and suffering is bad; what causes or tends to cause joy and happiness is good. Anger, hatred, envy, jealousy, dishonesty, meanness, vengefulness, cruelty, resentment, and despair are bad; joy, cheerfulness, kindliness, fairness, compassion, and honesty are good. That’s my moral framework as far as I’ve developed it.

Professor Korsgaard says, “Your movements have to come from your constitutional rule over yourself. Otherwise, you’ll be ruled by a heap of impulses.” That permeated my consciousness. If you aren’t self-constituted, if you aren’t unified, if you don’t have integrity, you’ll be a mess.