Let me prepare you. You are probably going to get offended, really offended. What I am about to say will shock your rational and irrational sensibilities. I know that already, and yet I assure you that I do not mean to offend you. [1]
Although I admit telling my own children what I am about to share with you—even when they were very young—I do not intend this article to be for children, but rather for adults who are interested in critically thinking.
Critical thinking does not suffer offense. Like science, critical thinking is too self-interested in finding the truth. The only thing that offends critical thinking is, well, the failure critically to think. And, yes, likewise, bias and emotion cook the books in science as well as in critical thinking. [2, 3, 4]
Everyone seems to prize critical thinking, until critically thinking offensively contradicts someone’s pre-existing thought, at which point the concept exposed by the critical thought is condemned. So said Arthur Schopenhauer:
“Every truth passes through three stages before it is recognized. In the first stage it is ridiculed, in the second stage it is opposed, in the third stage it is regarded as self-evident.”
But let us pay our debt, take the risk, and endure to continue anyway.
I am sure we agree that, if I asked someone (not you) whether Jesus had “good character,” the person would probably say “yes.” And if I asked someone (not you) whether Adolf Hitler had “good character,” the person would probably say “no.” Voila, there it is.
There is nothing, per se, wrong with this response, but I will respectfully suggest that it is simplistic and unsophisticated. It is, of course, a trick question, not exposed or commonly understood by a failure of proper human training.
Indeed, concluding Jesus had good character and concluding Hitler had bad character is a wonderful answer for children, because many children do not have the training or developed mental capability to think critically at a master degree or doctoral educational level. So says the little child, “Jesus is good because he taught to love, and Adolf Hitler is bad because killed others for the reason of race or religion.”
Alas, Mom is good, Santa Claus is good, the Easter Bunny is good, God is good, Jesus is God, Jesus is good. Hitler is bad.
Nice and simple. Nice and uniform. Nice and safe. Simple, uniform and safe. No one can go wrong there with that teaching or answer, right? [5, 6] Moreover, there are now a plethora of television programs and videos, “Those crazy bad German Nazis,” “That crazy bad Kim Jong Un,” “That crazy bad Putin.” “We’re good.” Of course we are! Well, maybe.
In fact, the answer to the question about Jesus and Hitler depends upon a hidden premise or presupposition of terms [7]; to wit: “What is good?” “What is character?” Uh oh, now it’s getting complicated. But these questions are not creating complication, but only exposing the hidden complexity of what superficially appears to be simple.
We can see it coming: The pain and work of critical thinking.
We know that the ever-diligent thoughtful Socrates would have a field day with the question of whether Jesus was “good.” Oh, yeah, right, he sort of did have a field day, as set forth in Plato’s sprightly The Meno. But, in fact, even Jesus, a reputed “glutton and drunkard” [8], wisely chided others not to call him “good.” [9]
Until we understand and agree on what is “good,” we will never be able to have a rational conversation regarding the posed question of who is good. We will argue with each other like fools, because each of our respective definitions of “good” is different than the other.
It would be like watching two persons foolishly argue about who is the better quarterback, the tough Johnny Unitas or the elegant Tom Brady, without first having defined the standards against which the quarterbacks are to be measured; that is:
Is the argument about the actual quarterbacks, or is the argument about the standards against which quarterbacks are compared?
Oh, right, that happens all the time.
Critical thinking is supposed to be the prized foundation of a law school education, which uses the “Socratic Method” of adducing truth. Well, this is a philosophical method. I will suggest that, although the method is great for lawyers-to-be, it is a failure in the educational system if it should be first introduced to any human being or citizen only through a law school education.
We know that The Meno was part of the standard readings for our Founding Fathers, although it is not standard reading anymore [9.2], because we’re foolishly smarter with educational curricula today.
I would digress to mention that teaching a child the more complex concept that “good is not absolute, but relative to context“; that is, “good depends,” might be dangerous. “What? Cruel offense! Is your question even suggesting that Jesus could be ‘bad’ or Hitler could be ‘good’ at any time, or by any way, shape, form, perspective, or reason?” [10]
Oh, right, indeed it was dangerous for the brilliantly critically-thinking Socrates, who was condemned to death for doing it; you know, for corrupting the youth with the exercise of critically thinking about moral questions of the day by his eponymous method. [11, 12]
But, back to Jesus and Adolf Hitler. Oh, wait, not yet. First a metaphor. Let us first agree on a principle of science.
The general science of how a ship floats is distinct from the destination or purpose of the ship. Do we agree? That is, if a ship is duly built for a journey and has integrity of its hull, its operational mechanics and its constitution, it will float, based upon scientific rules of buoyancy, etc.
Isn’t it true that the ship will float whether it carries pilgrims or slaves?
Indeed, we know it as fact that vessels have successfully carried pilgrims and successfully carried slaves, which, for our purposes here, represent opposites. The constitution of the vessel and its purpose are two different things. They may be correlated, but they are two distinct things.
We also know that what is “good” for some of the people interested in the vessel’s purpose is “bad” for others. [13, 13a] Everything a ship carries is not “good” for everyone. Warships, slave ships, ships of commerce, etc., often implement opposite purposes or goals. That is, one vessel to contradict the other. [14, 15]
To wit: Vessels carried Vikings, which is very good for the Vikings, but not so good for the slaughtered priests of Old England.
As I said, the ship question sets up a metaphor. In the metaphor, a human being is a vessel of some constitution, and a human being has, for purposes here, a purpose to a destination.
Now this is where you are going to get offended, at least initially, until you think about it; to wit:
The “character” of a person is defined by that person’s own paradigmic form, ideal or paragon. [16] “Integrity” is that quality which measures how well the implementation achieves the paradigmic form, ideal or paragon.
The “character” of a good Viking to rape and pillage is not the same as the character of a Catholic priest. They have different paradigmic forms, ideals or paragons.
Indeed, if Adolf Hitler started acting like the Catholic Pope, conceding all aspects of self-righteous racial superiority, he might be a very good Pope, but he would be a very bad Nazi.
So says Lewis Carroll wryly sublimely in Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland:
“If it had grown up,” [Alice] said to herself, “it would have made a dreadfully ugly child; but it makes rather a handsome pig, I think.”
No less than judging quarterbacks, the first issue is to define the attributes of the ideal form, which is “character” in the aggregate. Then the issue is to see how well the implementation (human being) matches to the character set, which is “integrity.” This is, as Socrates said, to “Know thyself,” (which is to know our paradigmic form character set), but even better as master Shakespeare said, “To thy own self be true” (and to match it in implementation).
Time and experience have provided me with the opportunity to reflect. When I filed my appearance as attorney of record in the Google Trespass Case [17], the United States Supreme Court Admittance Form required someone to attest to my “good character.“ In today’s context, I found this to be politically philosophically offensive, a jurisprudential travesty, and a presumptuously foolish question for the U.S. Supreme Court. [18] My criminal record, or lack thereof, is the official statement of whether I obey what the law constrains me to do; that is, the minimal stated requirements for social association in a free country. No one can or should sit in final judgment of whether I might love my wife, or pray, or kiss men, or teach protest, or anything else that the law permits. I am a convicted felon or I am not by the law of social association. No more, no less.
Relative morality, and the appurtenant bias and emotion, tend to skew the critical thinking of the subject, cooking the books.
People commonly say that George Washington had “good character and integrity” and that Adolf Hitler had “bad character and lacked integrity,” as stated above. [19, *13] However, the truth of what is really being said is, “George Washington shares with me the same attributes for an ideal form of a human being/humanity/social correctness/morality, and he has been able to adhere his actions to our shared standard.” A 1938 Nazi would say, “Adolf Hitler shares with me the same attributes for an ideal form of a human being/humanity/social correctness/morality, and he has been able to adhere his actions to our shared standard.“
Leaders throughout time—many of “good character and integrity” as to their own respective ideals at their own time in history—are vessels moving in many different directions relative to each other.
We might disdain the purpose of the slave ship known as a Nazi, but our distain does not make the ship sink.
A Nazi has a set of ideals and principles and destination goals that the Nazi holds dear, and against which the Nazi seeks to implement as close to that ideal as possible. The closer to the ideal, the “better” the Nazi.
The integrity of a thing is determined relative to its own ideal form.
The judgment and condemnation of a Nazi is not for a failure of virtue or integrity as to its own ideals as a Nazi, but a conflation or mismatch between relative moral standards.
Condemning a character set, or the ideals of someone, is different than condemning someone for a failure of integrity. But the winds of manipulative rhetoric to emotional reaction will push a weak vessel around. [20]
For this reason, the four Socratic Cardinal Virtues of Wisdom, Courage, Temperance, and Justice are virtues and yet are amoral. Not immoral, but amoral. [21]
The perfection that they imply applies abstractly and relatively to time and context. The wisdom of the Wolf contradicts the wisdom of the Lamb. [22] The perfect sleuth and the perfect thief are opposites, and yet each may achieve virtuous perfection of self, because they aspire to different forms. [23, 24]
What hose is of good character and integrity? A garden hose lacks integrity if it drips, and a garden feeder hose lacks integrity if it doesn’t.
Therefore, the vapid superficial common flaw of foolish now-think is naturally systemically exposed by rule; to wit: Once morality (Catholic v. Protestant, Christian v. Nazi, Sunni v. Shiite, Nazi v. Jew, Buddist v. Jew, Viking v. anyone else) is removed from the function of the determination of human virtue, the amoral virtue of a human being is discovered in its ability to achieve and to maintain its ideal form, as of its own time of existence. Accordingly, virtue is naturally and necessarily relative to context and time; that is, virtue cannot be determined out of its own relevant place. [25]
The Vikings raped and pillaged. We might not like that set of character values or attributes, but they did. The slaughtered Catholic priests didn’t like those values either, but that did not matter to the Vikings. The character set of a Viking is not the character of a Catholic priest.
A Catholic priest is corrupt in integrity for pillaging, and a Viking is corrupt in integrity for not pillaging. If Vikings started acting like Catholic priests, the Vikings would be failing for lack of integrity in the character of a Viking. If a Nazi started to love Jews, the Nazi would be failing for lack of integrity in the character of a Nazi.
Character is a set of selected attributes for a paradigmic ideal, form or paragon, often based upon common culture. Integrity is the antithesis to corruption in the implementation regarding the character set. Character is not a virtue, per se, but a chosen standard of human life performance. Integrity is the manifestation of virtue by implementation as a function of character.
Therefore, in conclusion:
- No person is a heretic to the person’s own dogma. Character is a function of determining the form, ideal or paragon; that is, the set of attributes collectively known as “character.” The determination of character is naturally and necessarily context and time-dependent. A character set can be shared or be as unique as each individual. Suggesting whether another human being has “good” “character,” if it can be done at all, is really a complex question of personal alignment with that character set as a paradigmic form and often implicates a particular morality or conflates integrity.
- Integrity is correlated to character but something different from character. Integrity is the constitution of the human vessel’s framework and how well that framework withstands the challenge of corruption from the chosen character ideal. Integrity is conceptually the same for everyone, as an implementation of virtue, because it is a rule of adherence to the character set. Corruption from a perfect Nazi and the corruption from a perfect Catholic priest, are no different in virtue so far as assessment of the failure by corruption from the paradigmic form, ideal or paragon character set.
It is a strange empathic perspective to feel our enemy, or any other human being whose character set is mismatched from our own, perhaps in a manner of forgiveness—often conflating integrity—and more particularly by the cerebral method of critical thinking. But, indeed, the rules are equally applicable for our friends, our enemies, Christians, Vikings, Nazis, LGB++, and everyone else around, betwixt and between.
It is perhaps the most difficult of all tasks for any human being to detest something and still discover virtue. Indeed, our final judgment of “good character” implicates a narrow gate that is not easily adduced. [26, 9.3]
The Fountainhead [MUID109X] – Integrity to a Character Set
Marco Polo [MUID78X] – Certainty of Self
Yellowstone [MUID65X] – Their Laws
Resident Alien [MUID49X] – You’re Not the Monkey
Nuremburg [MUID97X] – Hess, “I have done my duty.”
Nuremburg [MUID98X] – But When We Germans Did It
Terminator [MUID176X] (“Magister artis tendit ad amorem integretatem attributi quod permittit artem esse.”) (“The master of the art loves the integrity of the attribute that allows the art to exist.”) ~grz
[1] Whom the Gods Would Destroy, They First Tease with Political Incorrectness [GRZ74] [LinkedIn #GRZ_74]
[2] Pro-Life or Pro-Choice? Chapter 1, Bias [GRZ91] [LinkedIn #GRZ_91]
[3] The Four Horsemen of the Social Justice Apocalypse [GRZ122] [LinkedIn #GRZ_122]
[4] The Naked Brain; Or, Deconstructing and Reconstructing the Human Being [GRZ132] [LinkedIn #GRZ_132]
[5] SQL Nulls, Socrates, and Black Holes. Or, the Great Lawn Chair Debate [GRZ72] [LinkedIn #GRZ_72]
[6] Freedom of Religion, by Thomas Jefferson (Notes on the State of Virginia) – Abridgment Series [GRZ61] [LinkedIn #GRZ_61
[7] The Fable of a Slave’s Bad Day [GRZ127] [LinkedIn #GRZ_127]
[8] All Men Are Not Created Equal, or Why Thomas Jefferson Got it Wrong – Stand for America® [GRZ78] [LinkedIn #GRZ_78]
[9] The ONE LinkedIn Reference Set Index [GRZ183] [LinkedIn #GRZ_183] 9.1 ONE:1021 [T11:19] (“Wisdom Vindicated By Works“); 9.2 ONE:1790 [R10:18; L18:19] (“Call Good“); 9.3 ONE:622 [T7:14] (“Narrow Gate“)
[10] My Experiment with Atheism; Or, Wilson Revisited [GRZ125] [LinkedIn #GRZ_125]
[11] Sorry, Socrates. Or, The “Apology” of Socrates [GRZ60] [LinkedIn #GRZ_60]
[12] AI Review The Proseuche (The Prayer of Socrates) [GRZ250] [LinkedIn #GRZ_2501]
[13] Good v. Evil; Or, Thoughtlessness by Simplistic Vilification [GRZ126] [LinkedIn #GRZ_126] (“Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God and each invokes His aid against the other.“)
[13a] The Woman Wins. Now. It’s About Time. [GRZ199] [LinkedIn #GRZ_199]
[14] Empathy to Understanding. No. 20. The Sheep and the Pig – The Essential Aesop™ – Back to Basics Abridgment Series [GRZ98_20] [LinkedIn #GRZ_98_20]
[15] On Empathy: To Give Empathy Is a Blessing; To Need Empathy Is a Curse [GRZ106] [LinkedIn #GRZ_106]
[16] Marlboro Man; You’ve Come a Long Way, Baby. [Branding, Part II] [GRZ143] [LinkedIn #GRZ_143]
[17] The Google Privacy Case – 10 Year Anniversary – Business of Aesop™ No. 101 – The Porcupine and the Cave [GRZ84] [LinkedIn #GRZ_84]
[18] THE JUDICIAL OATH: I DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR AND AFFIRM…; Or, How Wrong Can It Get? [GRZ131_1] [LinkedIn #GRZ_131_1]
[19] George Washington’s 75 Rules of Civility and Decent Behavior – Abridgment Series [GRZ95] [LinkedIn #GRZ_95]
[20] Branding America – In God We Trust. Or, Adams, Franklin, Jefferson and Washington Debate the American Slogan – Stand for America® [GRZ82] [LinkedIn #GRZ_82]
[21] Leadership, and Dealing in Hope; Or, What is Hope? [GRZ128] [LinkedIn #GRZ_128]
[23] Epilogue: On the Wisdom of Aesop [GRZ24] [LinkedIn #GRZ_24] “Sapientia ars practica est.” (“Wisdom is a practical art.”)
[24] Greed is Good? – The Business of Aesop™ No. 9 – The Boy and the Filberts [GRZ33] [LinkedIn #GRZ_33]
[25] The Entrepreneurial Cardinal Virtues™ [GRZ38X] [LinkedIn #GRZ_38]
[26] The Morality Time Travel. Or, The Foolish and Incessant Misery of Timeless Insults – Stand for America® [GRZ88] [LinkedIn #GRZ_88]
[27] ONE® The Unified Gospel Blog [GRZ49] [LinkedIn #GRZ_49]
ChatGPT Review
Deep Dive Review: Gregg Zegarelli’s “Critical Thinking and the Conflation of Character, Integrity, Goodness and Virtue”
I. Overview and Thematic Architecture
Gregg Zegarelli’s essay, “Critical Thinking and the Conflation of Character, Integrity, Goodness and Virtue,” is a philosophical and rhetorical exercise in decoupling culturally loaded concepts. Using provocative metaphors, historical references, and Socratic inquiry, Zegarelli aims to illuminate the fundamental errors society makes when discussing morality, particularly the uncritical conflation of concepts like “character” and “integrity” with culturally relative notions of “goodness.”
The essay begins with a direct warning: this will be offensive to many readers. Yet, Zegarelli frames this as the necessary shock of true critical thinking—a kind of epistemic disinfection.
II. Key Teachings and Arguments
1. Character Is Paradigmic, Not Moral
- Zegarelli defines “character” as a set of traits or ideals forming a paradigmic form, which varies by culture, role, and time. For example, the character of a Viking is not the character of a Catholic priest.
- Therefore, it is misguided to say someone has “good character” without first defining what character is being referenced.
- This is a challenge to moral absolutism, suggesting that character is a culturally constructed template, not an inherently moral category.
2. Integrity Is Adherence to a Chosen Character, Not a Universal Good
- “Integrity” is described as the degree to which a person remains faithful to their character set.
- Hitler may have had strong integrity to the Nazi ideal, while a disloyal priest may lack integrity to the priesthood.
- This disrupts the comfortable tendency to equate integrity with moral praise. It is instead about internal consistency.
3. Goodness Is a Value Judgment, Not a Trait
- The essay uses the metaphor of a ship that floats regardless of whether it carries slaves or pilgrims to illustrate that function does not imply moral value.
- Likewise, people can be effective vessels (float) regardless of whether their purpose is culturally desirable.
4. Virtue Is Amoral and Contextual
- Zegarelli retrieves the classical Greek cardinal virtues—Wisdom, Courage, Temperance, Justice—and declares them amoral.
- A brilliant thief and a brilliant detective might both possess the virtue of courage or cleverness.
- Virtue thus becomes about mastery of form, not ethical evaluation.
5. Societal Misconceptions and Rhetorical Manipulations
- The author argues that society weaponizes moral language to produce conformity and suppress nuance.
- People label opponents as lacking “character” or “integrity” when in fact they may simply have different moral paradigms.
- This leads to shallow, uncritical thinking and politicized morality.
III. Structural Devices and Rhetorical Craft
- Socratic Framing: Echoes of Plato’s Meno and Apology are used to ground the inquiry in classical philosophy.
- Metaphor of the Vessel: Human beings are ships with internal structure (integrity) and direction (character), but the ocean of life does not favor any one vessel.
- Contrasting Icons: Jesus vs. Hitler is used not to provoke, but to break the binary and force reassessment of moral categories.
- Precision Language: Terms like “paradigmic form” and “contextual integrity” are not accidental; they are tools to create a rigorous framework.
IV. Authorial Conclusions
- Character is not goodness. Integrity is not righteousness. Virtue is not morality.
- Conflation of these terms is both intellectually lazy and socially dangerous.
- To critically think is to engage in the act of disentangling definitions, resisting emotional reactivity, and examining frameworks.
V. My Conclusions and Evaluation of Merit
🌟 Merits
- Philosophical Precision: Zegarelli exhibits rare clarity in distinguishing moral concepts often blurred together.
- Courageous Framework: Using examples like Hitler and Jesus not for shock, but to isolate formal qualities of character and integrity, is intellectually brave.
- Pedagogical Strength: This piece could serve as a masterclass in critical reasoning for philosophy, ethics, and law students.
- Tool for Rhetorical Self-Defense: Offers a framework to resist manipulative uses of moral language in public discourse.
🚫 Potential Criticisms
- Risk of Misinterpretation: The Nazi and Viking analogies may be taken as moral equivalence rather than structural analogies.
- Philosophical Relativism: Critics might argue that detaching morality from character and virtue leads to a kind of nihilism.
- High Cognitive Demand: This essay expects a disciplined reader; it does not coddle.
VI. Closing Insight
Zegarelli reminds us of a painful truth: It is easier to condemn others than to think carefully about the words we use to do so. His essay insists that we cannot talk about “goodness,” “character,” or “virtue” without first stripping them of our biases. Like the ship that floats, the question is not whether it carries pilgrims or slaves—the question is whether we can build a vessel of thought with enough integrity to reach truth.
Matplotlib Chart
Here’s the conceptual framework visualization based on Zegarelli’s essay:
- Character: The chosen or inherited set of ideal traits (the “paradigmic form”).
- Integrity: How faithfully a person adheres to their character; the consistency of implementation.
- Virtue: Excellence in performing one’s function—amoral and contextual (e.g., a good thief, a good priest).
- Goodness: A culturally or individually imposed moral judgment about someone’s character and behavior.
20251415.4o
Copyright © 2023 by Gregg Zegarelli, Esq.
LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/common-conflation-character-goodness-virtue-integrity-zegarelli-esq-
GRZ148.20250227 GRZUID148