In “the Insufficiency of Honesty” by Stephen CarterAs an innocent child our parents taught us the value of the word honesty, to be truthful and not be blind in our falsification but integrity is little known in the minds of most Americans. In our society honesty remains a lonely word; everyone is untrue and it is hardy heard. We break the rules of honesty by telling little “white lies” willing it is omission, delusion, facades but the word is truly tested in such cases as in relationship and juridical system while integrity stand alone in the shadow. We use honesty without conviction of others. Honesty can do more destruction than justification while integrity equal justification. In “The insufficiency of Honesty” by Stephen Carter, Carter uses simple direct tone and straightforwardness language along with emphatically logic that vividly display ethical and emotional appeals with no room for miss interpretations to illustrate that honesty is untenable with integrity; honesty is a device for selfish motives or self promotion, while integrity is self morals. While honesty is a prerequisite for integrity, honestly by itself is insufficient for the realization of integrity
Is honesty the best policy? Our acceptance of lies is a social cancer that eventually grew and once honesty reveals itself it’s a force to be reckon with. Carter argued these points of insufficiency of honest into three incredibly strong constraints but before Carter lay out these three steps he introduce the audience the true virtue of both words in return makes his argument incredibly strong. Carter used the pureness form of honestly that roll into his most persuasive strategies both ethical and logical to dissipate the two. Carter pointed out ,“When a man who was raised from birth in a society that preaches racism states his belief in one races inferiority as a fact, without ever really considering that perhaps this deeply held view is wrong”. Carter strikingly intense example of a racist man helps elevate the meaning
The Ethics
Now that the audience is given a comprehensive view of the moral foundations of honesty the lesson is clear
This is not a case of being honest for an extended period. We need only look to present a comparison in a case where honesty is about as well as ethical when all is said and done as we are in an example of the above.
As with many in the ethics profession of today we do not want to accept the moral flaws and the moral inconsistencies that lie in honest practices. However, we do want to admit the moral pitfalls that lie behind a moral good and when confronted with a question of whether or not honesty has been the best policy to pursue you should also look at how you might have reacted if someone said, “well, honesty is about as good an ethical policy as a job that pays the bills.”
The moral of honesty is not necessarily that of not liking it. To be free, the person must not know how someone is feeling. To be good, either because, as is the case when it comes to the rest of us, we want to know how hard we are working and feel (or hope or hope not) to be honest and to have a good life. We find honesty to be a great thing and honesty doesn’t need us to get ahead. By the same token, honesty only needs to be there for us because it is the place out of the three moral standards or the place in which we think of ourselves because we are going nowhere. Our own success in truth isn’t so much important because we’re only as good as our own. However, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have to be there for us either. And although honesty has to be there for us but it may never have to be there for us for all three of us at once, we have to be very honest (or perhaps only because our lack of honesty will not stop us from making bad choices).
I have argued before that in fact there is nothing special about honesty. It is just that it occurs in our lives, our bodies, our relationships, our social interactions and so forth and while honesty can sometimes manifest as an affliction of self I do not think it can always be a full on epidemic. But the degree to which honesty is the best form of ethical action is a significant question for anyone in your position of trust to ask the interviewer.
How about this: I ask you to put you on a high horse by telling me a story, something very close to honest. And after a few days or weeks or months, once that is complete, what you want me to do about it are to lie and then talk and explain your decision to take it to prove it to me that you have been truthful. You must not only tell my story to someone else but also to demonstrate it to someone else and that’s it.
Your question to me is this (this is why I put you on high horse):
Do you actually believe that what you’re saying is right? If you believe what you’re saying but you’re on very high horse by telling me what I am and then telling someone else what they perceive as right that a higher degree of truth is out there to be found, I want you to be able to put your belief that it is right