6. Integrity is about ethics, not just popular morality
Integrity is acting consistently not only with what is generally accepted as moral, what others think, but primarily with what is ethical, what SPs should do based on reasonable arguments. Ethics may place higher or lower demands on SPs than morality does. Integrity therefore demands that SPs not only conform to what is ethical, but also have ethical arguments for it.
Integrity is not only a legal concept, in the sense of behavior consistent with the rules of the job; it is also a moral concept, in the sense of behavior consistent with the applicable moral values and norms. ]SPs must therefore know not only what the relevant legal norms mean for them but also what the moral norms mean.
Still, the common view of morality does not take priority. Popular opinion is not good or defensible by definition. What fits in with public mores is not automatically ethical, and integrity is behavior that is consistent not only with public perceptions of morality, but also and even primarily with what is inherently ethical.
Ethics reflects on morality, functioning as an impartial and independent judge, determining what is good and what is bad, responsible and irresponsible, acceptable and unacceptable. Ethics is more than a matter of taste. Ethics makes an appeal to general acceptance, an appeal to everyone in the same situation to act in the same way.35 This is not a matter of what people think, but what they should think based on reasonable arguments. Majority views may therefore be unethical. For SPs used to democratic decision making, this is a different logic: it is not the majority but ethics which decides.
Ethics may place higher demands than common views of morality. For instance if public morality in a particular country approves the payment of bribes or torture of terrorists, this does not make it ethical. Ethics can, for example, state that bribes damage the integrity of decision making and that interrogation by torture violates human rights. On the other hand morality may make higher demands than ethics. If public morality holds that an SP should resign for being unfaithful in marriage, this is not necessarily ethical. Ethics might state that an extra-marital affair is a private matter, unconnected with good performance in office. So behavior that is judged as moral by public opinion is not necessarily ethical by definition, and ethical behavior does not automatically define public views of morality.
Even if an SP adheres to ethically responsible moral values and norms, this is not necessarily ethical. There is another important dimension to ethics. When someone acts according to habit, convenience, or impulse, and their behavior coincides with what is good from an ethical point of view, this cannot be seen as ethical, as the concept of ethics is missing. Notions such as “I just think that’s the way it is”, “That’s what I’m used to”, and “That’s what’s expected” are ethically unconvincing. People should think from an ethical perspective about why that might be the case, looking for arguments and considerations that are convincing and reasonable, forming a legitimate justification of behavior. Integrity therefore demands that SPs not only conform to what is ethical, but also have ethical arguments for it.
The discussion above shows that SPs behaving opportunistically are not acting with integrity: they use ethical arguments only when it suits them. Selfishness cannot be seen as integrity because it prioritizes individual interests without allowing room for ethical arguments and considerations. The discussion above also shows that chameleon-like behavior cannot be seen as showing integrity: SPs who do this adapt to what others think, rather than being guided by ethical considerations, which should have priority over the opinions of others.36 This is also the reason that SPs who behave bureaucratically fall short from an ethical standpoint. People like this may comply with the rules, but are not open to ethical considerations, which in some cases can justify breaking or bypassing the rules (necessity knows no law).
Ethics goes beyond finding good arguments to uphold current public views on morality. It is first and foremost about SPs determining what is ethical. In reaction to US president Bill Clinton’s statement, “It’s all about the economy, stupid!” Dutch prime minister Ruud Lubbers argued, “It’s all about ethics, stupid!”37 In politics the important thing is ethics, because people behaving unethically run the risk of doing wrong. Moreover, ethics can supply SPs with arguments for explaining to others as well as themselves why they are or are not following public morality, convincing others as well as themselves of a better way, and motivating others as well as themselves for what is ethical. At that point ethics becomes public morality and that morality (in part through policy and rules) becomes behavior.
From the perspective of integrity it is therefore important that SPs do not indiscriminately accept public morality, but reflect critically on whether public morality is ethically founded.38 US president Franklin Roosevelt emphasized the importance of this point for the presidency: “The Presidency is not merely an administrative office. That<