Integrity during a Mid-Life Crisis

[ZSorenson]

Imagine you have been involved in an imposing religion your whole life. You have many kids, and a wife whom you love very much. Your religion has strict demands, and also requires a certain amount of intellectual evasion to be accepted. You've been very productive your whole life, and never bothered much with the veracity of your religion because it never mattered as much as making a living. You love your wife because you truly value her virtues. Concerning your religion, you've always, "Gone with the flow".

Now, at some point, you finally question your religion as it conflicts more and more with your vision for your life. And ultimately, you reject it - say you discover Objectivism. Unfortunately, this rejection will destablize your family completely, and may even hurt your public image and prevent you from succeeding in you job (say you are a politician or well-known CEO).

Do you keep your conclusions about religion secret, and keep "going with the flow", content that you know better?

Here's a reason in favor: the value you lose by coming out into the open (your family, essentially), is greater than the value you lose (integrity) by keeping your views secret. Presumably, you value your family for virtues beyond their narrow views based on religion.

Here's a reason against: the value you lose if your family rejects you is minimal, as their virtues are automatically overshadowed by their irrational rejection of your value due to your irreligion. Your integrity, even at middle age, is worth maintaining above and beyond your other values.

I suppose the essence of the scenario is: as a cardinal virtue, does integrity have an automatic precedence, or can cardinal values sometimes be better obtained in spite of certain virtues?

This is an imaginary scenario, and has no bearing in my life, nor for anyone I personally know.

[DavidOdden]

Let's examine the argument in favor more closely, the "loss of family" consequence. But let's modify it, so that the consequence of integrity is loss of affection of your best friend, Smith. (The loss of an entire family seems so dire that it verges on the melodramatic). Now, why is Smith your best friend? Because the two of you share certain fundamental values. Those could be religion, or non-religion. Suppose they are religion. Well, then you and Smith no longer share those values, and that which caused the relationship of "friendship" between you no longer exists; therefore in fact you are not best friends, and maintaining your integrity does not cause loss of that value -- it is already lost.

Suppose instead the shared values are not religion. If Smith is basically a rational person, and thus a person worthy of being called a best friend, then he will set aside the new-found differences in religion, just as he would not irrationally reject you as a friend because you like fish sticks and he hates them. OTOH, if Smith is basically an irrational person and is willing to throw away higher values (shared (non-religious) values that were the foundation for the friendship), then you as a rational person should realize that Smith is not in fact the kind of person who can really be your best friend -- that is, he is not in fact your best friend.

[Lucio]

Now, at some point, you finally question your religion as it conflicts more and more with your vision for your life. And ultimately, you reject it - say you discover Objectivism. Unfortunately, this rejection will destablize your family completely, and may even hurt your public image and prevent you from succeeding in you job (say you are a politician or well-known CEO).

You can simply stop considering religion relevant.

If you do not actively talk against it, your current friends and family will not freak out.

They're trained to ignore reality, so, unless you force them to deal with your enligthment

by confronting them, you can continue with your life and let them discover gradually your changes.

[softwareNerd]

There have probably been quite a few cases where someone religious, married to a religious spouse and bringing up their kids religious has had a radical change of conviction. The sensible thing is for the guy to explain this to his spouse. If he really loves his spouse, he would want to show her what he has figured out. Since he has recently been in her situation, he would empathize with her views, even though he now finds her views to be mistaken. If he discovered some other truth: say that the world was round when they all thought it was flat, he would want to share it with his wife and kids,; so, why not this?

If the guy chose his wife well, it is quite possible that he can get her to see his point of view -- even if they go through some period where they are discussing it. It could well be that his wife decides that religion is too important to her, and they end up splitting. Still, that's much better than living a complete lie.

[Karl Nord]

I suppose the essence of the scenario is: as a cardinal virtue, does integrity have an automatic precedence, or can cardinal values sometimes be better obtained in spite of certain virtues?

If the denial of a virtue yields greater value than the "virtue" itself, then it is no longer a virtue.

If a dying soldier is asking you whether his mother is happy, and you have no idea, what do you tell him? You tell him--- in honesty to his state of affairs, "Yes."

This is a direct case when Honesty is overcome by the Expediency of the Moment. Objectivist Ethics would seem to be flaunted, but here--as in your scenario--the context of a life-time has changed to a smaller one.

40 years is a very long time. The new values he would gain from Objectivism would fulfill and even exceed the values he would gain from a twisted family life. If reduced only to a year I would change my mind. (It took roughly 1 year for me to get engaged in Objectivism, and even then I enjoying widespread benefits from the get-go. )

[Grames]

Here's a reason in favor: the value you lose by coming out into the open (your family, essentially), is greater than the value you lose (integrity) by keeping your views secret. Presumably, you value your family for virtues beyond their narrow views based on religion.

Here is a reason against living a secret life: Presumably, your family values you for virtues beyond their narrow views based on religion.

[JMeganSnow]

Also, this question forgets that values are hierarchical--the achievement of some values depends logically upon other values. The Objectivist "cardinal" virtues are that because they are fundamental.

How long could you continue to be happy and love your family and your life if you have to fake in order to do so? How long will THEY continue to love YOU and be happy when you become angry and resentful about this procedure? How long will it matter to you either way if you blank out the facts in order not to show that you're increasingly dissatisfied?

As you cannot build a house by starting with the roof, you cannot build a happy life by starting with a bunch of derivative values (THIS job, THIS family situation) and trying to go from there. Even if it hurts and upsets a lot of things, when you realize that your foundation is shot you NEED to go back and fix it. If you don't do it NOW, you'll wind up having to do it later whether you want to or not, and by then your situation may be so bad due to neglect that you may wind up with a lot greater loss than if you'd bitten the bullet up front.

[L-C]

How valuable could a family whose appreciation of you depends on irrationality be, to begin with? And certainly after you've discovered that this is the case?

[Maximus]

How valuable could a family whose appreciation of you depends on irrationality be, to begin with? And certainly after you've discovered that this is the case?

So one should just cast one's family aside and walk away? "Oh, you people are irrational, therefore, you are no longer of value to me."

I would call such a person an asshole.

[TLD]

If the guy chose his wife well, it is quite possible that he can get her to see his point of view -- even if they go through some period where they are discussing it. It could well be that his wife decides that religion is too important to her, and they end up splitting. Still, that's much better than living a complete lie.

I agree. And the key to what you said is "choosing the wife well." If you choose a spouse for the right reasons - e.g. rational value sharing, then your change re religion will likely be received well over time. Otherwise, the marriage will appropriately fail.

[TLD]

So one should just cast one's family aside and walk away? "Oh, you people are irrational, therefore, you are no longer of value to me."

That is very different from the suggestions made.

If you started off rational in the marriage, you would not have married an irrational person.

If you have new-found rationality (e.g. studied Objectivism), then it is your responsibility to educate the spouse along the way. But if the spouse will not accept your change, then he/she does not appreciate the importance of being rational and your differences will make you both unhappy. Thus, splitting is the proper thing to do.

[Steven Tucker]

So one should just cast one's family aside and walk away? "Oh, you people are irrational, therefore, you are no longer of value to me."

I would call such a person an asshole.

I'm not certain that this is what they are saying. You should not allow your family to define your presentation of who you are. It is their decision to reject you, as a person and family member. You are not rejecting them. You can only choose to act according to the truth as you understand it. I am religious in one sense and totally irreligious in another. This sometimes causes conflict with my parents because with such contradictions, either my parents or I am correct, or we are both wrong, but it cannot be that we are both right. I am not insecure about my beliefs and therefore am not threatened nor feel defensive when people hold beliefs different than my own. My confidence does not require proselytizing my family and therefore they do not feel insecure around me. There are arguments from time to time, but these arguments are the inevitable result of a rational disagreement. I do not view such disagreements as negative.

Edited March 22, 2010 by Steven Tucker