65. Integrity is only relevant if there are alternatives
SPs can only be held responsible for a choice if they have something to choose. SPs who shirk responsibility by claiming they have no other choice exhibit a lack of power and integrity if there are in fact several choices or if they have done too little to create options or keep them open.
One way of defending oneself against criticism and accusations is to point to a lack of choice. “I couldn’t do anything else”, “It was the only choice”, and “There was no other option” are typical comments people use in the hope of justifying their choices. There was really no choice at all.
Such a defense is a sign of integrity if personal integrity is the driving force behind the choice. What you stand for only allows you one choice: all other choices would be a betrayal and loss of self. As German theologian Martin Luther said when he was required to appear before the Diet of Worms, “Here I stand. I can do no other.”391 This is taking full responsibility for a choice, embodying the choice.
However, claiming a lack of freedom of choice can also be a way of attempting to avoid responsibility. You can only be held responsible for a choice if there is something to choose. If there is no choice, you are not responsible. This kind of shirking of responsibility, however, quickly becomes transparent. With a few exceptions there is no such thing as a complete lack of choice. Often there is at least the choice between action and inaction.
Pointing to a lack of choice also indicates your own impotence, taking action without being able to change anything. This means being completely in the grip of the situation or of other people. SPs should therefore realize that shirking responsibilities in this way will not be seen by others as a sign of power. Moreover from the perspective of integrity it is not right to act as if you lack power when you have it.
At the same time this means that in judging a person’s integrity we should take into account the room for maneuver. People can only be morally reprehensible if they could have made better choices.392 Criticizing people for their behavior suggests not only that the person should have acted differently, but also that they could have done so.
Judgment of a person’s integrity does not only depend on the room for maneuver over the decision. It is also important to determine the extent to which a person is responsible for the room for maneuver that they have. People are also responsible if they have not created or maintained sufficient freedom when this was possible, for instance by failing to look for alternatives, or limiting options by making commitments or closing doors prematurely, or placing themselves in positions vulnerable to blackmail.
The points above apply to valuing as well as criticizing a person’s integrity. People with no other choice cannot be praised for their choices. That is why former German chancellor Gerhard Schröder once emphasized his responsibility as follows: “Here I stand, but I can do otherwise, if you would finally budge a bit.”393