Maybe there is no such thing as integrity, there is only survival.

Or more accurately, when two things are discovered to be opposites, they are then not different things but parts of a unifying thing.

The opposite ends of a stick are both “stick”.

The opposite of integrity is survival. People compromise their integrity when their survival is threatened.

Everyone agrees, “Thou shalt not steal—unless your children are hungry and his are not.”

Thus, integrity and survival are not different things but degrees of the same thing, different ends of the same stick.

Citizens of the US consider the morality, the integrity in our commerce to be of a higher grade than that in many third world countries. We consider integrity to be the opposite of survival.  As it was put by someone born in a third world country, “In the US, we have the luxury of integrity.”

Entertain the possibility that the constraint here is, “I don’t steal or lie because the disgrace after discovery would destroy me.” That is a higher order of integrity (or survival) than, “I don’t steal or lie because I will be beaten if it is discovered.” It is even a higher order than, “I don’t steal or lie because God would punish me, or God wouldn’t love me, or I wouldn’t get into Heaven.” And the highest order of integrity is, “I don’t steal or lie because I would not know who I was if I did.”

Entertain the possibility that that high-level integrity is, at its root, entirely about survival of the self. Entertain the possibility that survival and integrity are the same thing.  We lie and steal to stay alive. Or we don’t because we would stop being who we are if we lie or steal.  There is a possibility that survival and integrity are synonyms.

Consider what happens when a person’s survival is “handled”—either

1)       they will certainly die, or

2)       their survival cannot be disturbed (wealth, love, etc) (this is a theoretical state, probably not achievable), or

3)       they are sufficiently committed to something such that they are indifferent to their survival.

In the first and third cases, they are dangerous because they don't care if the body lives or dies.

In the second and third case, they can almost always be trusted with other people’s money or with power.

A fun illustration of the first case is the movie, Short Time with Dabney Coleman. He falsely believes he has a fatal disease and proceeds to get himself killed in action as a cop so his son can go to college on the life insurance pay out.  Pay particular attention to disarming the bomber in the convenience store. Imagine the unstoppable power of a person who is indifferent to their survival.

Which urges the question: if a person is indifferent to their survival, are they indifferent to their integrity?

If Gandhi faced-off against the British, barefoot in his home-spun and his walking stick, what was his integrity?

In such focused commitment, is there a surrender of one’s sense of right and wrong to the requirements of the commitment?