Zegarelli argues that character attributes must be evaluated not as universally applicable measures of integrity, but in relation to their relevance to a defined Primary Objective—distinguishing between traits that affect performance and those that do not, thereby reframing leadership judgment from moral generalization to functional alignment. Not every flaw is fatal; only the relevant ones are. [AI Assessment]
<< Primary Objective Part 3 – Primary Objective Part 1 >>
Before you disagree with me, allow me to use a rhetorical introduction. [1]
I will start with a story about Abraham Lincoln and how he handled a particular situation—perhaps apocryphal. I say a “rhetorical introduction” because I’m trying to bias your otherwise free mind with your preconception to the superiority of Abraham Lincoln. In other words, because of your bias for the political majesty of Honest Abe, it will lend credence to the point. Sort of the logic flaw of, “Everyone knows that Abraham Lincoln is smarter than you and saved a country; therefore, it naturally follows that you would agree with him here.”
Here goes, with our story of Honest Abe:
President Abraham Lincoln, upon being told General Ulysses S. Grant was a drunk, replied:
“I wish some of you would tell me the brand of whiskey that Grant drinks. I would like to send a barrel of it to my other generals. I can’t spare this man, he fights”.
So what is the point?
Everyone knows that Abraham Lincoln was a bulldog with a Primary Objective. [2] And everyone knows that General Grant had an alcohol drinking issue. Everyone also knows that General Grant was a superb general.
Therefore, we must read the story not on a superficial “cute funny story” basis, but on a deeper structural “leadership” basis regarding logic flaws of thinking; to wit:
1. It does not follow that just because a man drinks whiskey—or is even a drunkard—that he is therefore unable to fulfill his essential function. 2. If you convince me that the attribute of his drinking is relevant to his performance in achieving our Primary Objective, then it must have a net positive effect that needs to be implemented for everyone with that purpose—“because the proof of the pudding is in the eating.”
Therefore, it follows that Abraham Lincoln disregarded a negative attribute that did not affect the quality of achieving his Primary Objective.
Grant was winning. Lincoln was not going to get side-tracked squabbling around “like a wet hen.” [3]
The error in thinking is to assume that one attribute in a character set or the integrity in maintaining those principled characteristics is always “horizontal” in application. [4] Some attributes are horizontal, but not all. [5] By “horizontal,” it means that the attribute is one that affects or “bleeds into” all others, as distinguished from a “vertical” attribute that can generally “stand alone,” for better or worse.
Let’s try another one. Let’s say your spouse is overweight, which can be by a failure of discipline, which can therefore be an “integrity” issue. It is a character mismatch if your spouse actually wants to be “over” weight. It is an integrity issue assuming there is a personal failure to adhere to a known fitness standard. [*4]
But, does the lack of discipline for sweets transfer into a lack of discipline in sexual cheating? We all know that the world is filled with people who are disciplined to stay in perfect shape with integrity for that attribute while cheating on their spouse.
Does President Kennedy’s (and perhaps a lot of other men’s at the time) known attraction to Marilyn Monroe mean that he fails or would fail as an excellent president? Or Bill Clinton’s. Does the perceived quality of the love by a president’s immediate family for him mean anything regarding presidency, whether President Biden or President Trump’s? Does it follow that every woman who cheats on her husband (failure of one attribute) automatically becomes a bad mother? One vice does not always necessarily collapse and subsume every virtue.
The media—and enemies for this person or that—will confuse, conflate and homogenize attributes. President Lincoln failed and failed and failed, in certain things, and then…
Therefore, we need to consider the source of the condemnation, and whether an attack on an attribute of a leader’s character or integrity is “relevant” and “how relevant” to the Primary Objective, being the role-objective match. [6, *2]
1. Determine the Primary Objective. 2. Determine the “Driving Attribute” of character or integrity [*4] that drives progress toward accomplishment of that Primary Objective. 3. Determine the “Suspect Attribute” at issue for consideration as a contradiction to achievement of that Primary Objective. 4. Determine whether or to what extent the Driving Attribute and the Suspect Attribute conjoin thereby placing achievement of the Primary Objective to be at risk. [*2]
Sure, everyone knows that Old Honest Abe jilted Mary Todd at the alter [7], and had bouts of depression, but he turned out to be a rather great president. And everyone knows that General Grant was a great general—although perhaps not the best president—some say.
[1] The Rise of the American Hermaphrodite; Or, the Tending Shift of Cultural Narrative Since c.1950. [GRZ210] [LinkedIn #GRZ_210]
[2] The Lincoln Leadership Dilemma; Or, The Primary Objective [Part 2] [GRZ176] [LinkedIn #GRZ_176]
[3] Waterloo (Napoleon) [MUID69X]
[4] Critical Thinking and the Conflation of Character, Integrity, Goodness and Virtue [GRZ148] [LinkedIn #GRZ_148]
[5] VI. Simulation and Dissimulation; Or, The Art of the Lie. – Back to Basics Abridgement Series [GRZ190] [LinkedIn #GRZ_190]
[6] Consider the Source; or First Hand Knowledge – No. 68. The Lion and the Statue – The Essential Aesop™- Back to Basics Abridgment Series [GRZ98_68] [LinkedIn #GRZ_98_68]
[7] https://www.google.com/search?q=did+abraham+lincoln+jilt+mary+todd&oq=did+abraham+lincoln+jilt+mary+todd&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigATIHCAIQIRigATIHCAMQIRigATIHCAQQIRigATIHCAUQIRigATIHCAYQIRirAjIHCAcQIRirAjIHCAgQIRiPAtIBCDczODhqMGo5qAIAsAIB8QVVf_bufAK6Yw&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Waterloo (Napoleon) [MUID69X] – Feigns [Ed. Note: “Caution and Courage” are two of the four Cardinal Virtues, or Temperance and Fortitude, and when co-existing are harmonized by Justice. “He’s nailed himself” denotes Wellington’s Discipline, and caution for this context implies Wisdom. Wellington is a formidable contender who does not fall trap to the bait. The scene of stoicism with Earl Uxbridge’s leg is both true and has interesting subsequent history. (I needed to watch this sublime version again to wash out the taste from the recent Ridley Scott catastrophe.)]
ChatGPT Assessment
This is one of your more structurally important pieces—not flashy, but foundational. It’s doing heavy conceptual work inside your system.
I’ll go in your usual frame: ethos → pedagogy → conclusions → canonical placement, then push where it’s strongest and where it can be sharpened.
I. ETHOS — What You’re Actually Arguing
At surface:
- Lincoln / Grant anecdote
- “don’t conflate flaws”
- leadership evaluation
But underneath, this is a direct assault on moral flattening.
Core Ethos Principle
Character attributes are not universally transferable across functions.
Or in your terms:
Not all attributes are horizontal; some are vertical
That’s the engine.
What “Relevant Integrity” Really Means
You’re redefining integrity away from:
- global moral consistency
toward:
function-relative reliability
That’s a significant shift.
Instead of:
- “Is he a good man?”
You ask:
“Does this attribute affect performance of the Primary Objective?”
The Lincoln Move (Again, deliberate)
You use:
- Abraham Lincoln
- Ulysses S. Grant
Not for history—but for bias leverage (you admit it explicitly).
That’s actually important:
you expose the rhetorical trick while using it
Which reinforces your broader theme:
- awareness of manipulation ≠ immunity to it
II. PEDAGOGY — How It Teaches
This piece is unusually structured for you—more procedural than narrative.
1. The Setup: Bias Acknowledged
You open by saying:
“I’m trying to bias you”
That does two things:
- disarms critique
- builds credibility
It’s a clever pedagogical inversion.
2. The Core Distinction: Horizontal vs. Vertical
This is the most canon-worthy concept in the piece.
- Horizontal attributes → bleed across roles
- Vertical attributes → isolated to function
That’s clean, portable, and reusable.
3. Progressive Examples
You escalate:
- Grant (drinking vs. fighting)
- Spouse (discipline vs. fidelity)
- Presidents (sexual conduct vs. leadership)
This layering:
- broadens applicability
- forces discomfort
4. The Algorithm (This is key)
You give a 4-step test:
- Identify Primary Objective
- Identify Driving Attribute
- Identify Suspect Attribute
- Test interaction
This is not just philosophy—it’s a decision framework.
That’s a major strength.
5. The Hidden Pedagogical Move
You don’t resolve the examples.
You leave the reader to:
perform the analysis themselves
That keeps it:
- diagnostic
- not preachy
III. CONCLUSIONS — What It Actually Establishes
1. Integrity Is Contextual, Not Absolute
This is the central claim:
A flaw is only disqualifying if it interferes with the objective.
That’s controversial—but coherent.
2. Media / Social Error Identified
You correctly identify:
conflation, homogenization, narrative distortion
That’s a recurring theme in your canon.
3. Leadership Evaluation Reframed
You move from:
- moral judgment
to:
performance alignment
That’s closer to:
- military thinking
- executive decision-making
4. The Risk (Important)
This framework can justify:
tolerating serious flaws if performance is high
Which leads to a real tension:
- When does “irrelevant flaw” become “systemic risk”?
You gesture at this—but don’t fully resolve it.
IV. CRITICAL ASSESSMENT
Where It Is Strongest
1. The Horizontal / Vertical Distinction
This is canonical-level.
It’s:
- simple
- transferable
- analytically powerful
2. The 4-Step Framework
This turns philosophy into:
usable method
That’s rare and valuable.
3. The Anti-Conflation Doctrine
This integrates tightly with:
- your “Conflation of Character” article
- your Aesop work
Where It Can Be Sharpened
1. Define the Boundary Condition
Right now:
- “relevance” is doing all the work
But:
who determines relevance?
You could tighten by adding:
- temporal risk (future impact)
- indirect effects (team morale, trust erosion)
- escalation potential
2. The Spouse Example
It works logically—but:
- risks distracting from the core thesis
- invites emotional pushback
You might consider tightening or repositioning it.
3. Overextension Risk
Without constraint, the framework can be read as:
“Results justify everything.”
That’s not what you’re saying—but it’s a predictable misread.
V. CANONICAL PLACEMENT
This is important.
Category: Core Analytical Doctrine
This sits with:
- “Conflation of Character, Integrity…”
- “Primary Objective” series
- “Priest-Patton Scale”
Role in Your System
This piece provides:
the filter for evaluating people once the objective is set
So:
- Primary Objective → what matters
- This article → who is fit to achieve it
Canonical Value
High.
Not because it’s the most provocative—but because it is:
structurally necessary
VI. Final Synthesis
Zegarelli argues that character attributes must be evaluated not as universally applicable measures of integrity, but in relation to their relevance to a defined Primary Objective—distinguishing between traits that affect performance and those that do not, thereby reframing leadership judgment from moral generalization to functional alignment.
In your cadence
Not every flaw is fatal;
only the relevant ones are.
© 2026 Gregg Zegarelli, Esq.
<< Primary Objective Part 3 – Primary Objective Part 1 >>
Related Articles:
- [98_113] Trusting Intention and Trusting Capability [Final Episode] – No. 113. The Man and the Old Dog – The Essential Aesop™ – Back to Basics Abridgment Series [GRZ98_113][LinkedIn #GRZ_98_113]
- [98_60] Wisdom v. Compassion, Or, the Elizabeth Smart Prediction – No. 60. The Woodsman and Serpent – The Essential Aesop™ – Back to Basics Abridgment Series [GRZ98_60] [LinkedIn #GRZ_98_60]
- [216] Love v. Fear to Motivate: Which is Better? [GRZ216] [LinkedIn #GRZ_216]
- [162] The Priest-Patton Scale; Or, Objective-Based Leadership [Primary Objective, Part 1] [GRZ162] [LinkedIn #GRZ_162]
- [208] Are You Running With Your Shoes Untied? – Or, the Despise of Failure by Self-Inflicted Wounds [Primary Objective, Part 3] [GRZ208] [LinkedIn #GRZ_208]
The statements or opinions made in this article are solely the author’s own and not representative of any institution regarding which the author is affiliated.
<< Primary Objective Part 3 – Primary Objective Part 1 >>
GRZ286.20260502 GRZUID286