Dear Bob ... I was rather amused to see your first letter mentioning "integrity" and your second letter talking about "affairs." You seem to be having trouble defining integrity. Webster's defines it as "firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values." It also carries the synonyms of "incorruptible, honesty, soundness, completeness." In Roman days, some pottery makers would rub wax into small cr Dear Bob …I was rather amused to see your first letter mentioning “integrity” and your second letter talking about “affairs.” You seem to be having trouble defining integrity. Webster’s defines it as “firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values.” It also carries the synonyms of “incorruptible, honesty, soundness, completeness.” In Roman days, some pottery makers would rub wax into small cracks of inferior pottery to sell to unsuspecting buyers. Those who made superior products took to labeling them “sincere” – meaning “without wax.”Your example of honesty was also misplaced. Sure I could tell somebody they’re ugly, but that would be detracting from my integrity. Why not praise that same person for being diligent, kind, loving, or any other positive quality? As you often point out, use tact. If they asked if I thought they were ugly, I’d ask them if there was something about themselves they didn’t accept. So you see, there are other ways to address the issue. My point is that integrity does matter. I would wager that when you purchase a product, quality and integrity of the product and the manufacturer are at the top of your list.As far as “creatively lazy” goes, yes, I would agree. My thought process has always been “I’ll bet there’s a better way to do this.” That has slowed me down a few times but later rewarded me with astounding productivity gains over my peers. However, I would not define the person as lazy, but as creative, showing initiative, expanding his knowledge, etc.Now take the creatively lazy person working for you and say he is a thief. Now does integrity matter? If you educate a thief, all you have is an educated crook. If you have a person of integrity, you know you can trust them, and you would probably invest in their training and future, wouldn’t you agree?I’d like to ask you to reconsider your position on “integrity.”– More firm on the subject Dear More firm …I’m hurt – I thought I did rather a good job of defining integrity. Nor was my discussion of honesty misplaced. Your account of the subject allows you to pick and choose the subjects about which you speak honestly and which you choose to respond with a “no comment.” No argument – you’re making the right choice, and acting with integrity within the dictates of your value system.But your value system says that trying to avoid gratuitously hurting someone is more important than speaking honestly about all subjects (so does mine). So honesty isn’t the pinnacle of integrity. Now about that thief. What did we all learn about Robin Hood and the Sheriff of Nottingham? (I’ve read that the historical Robin was actually little more than a thug, but never mind reality – think of the legend).Which is to say, just about everyone is the hero of their own movie, not the villian. The question I ask isn’t whether the other person has integrity or not. It’s whether their value system is compatible with my own. That’s all I need to know and all I have the right to decide, not being, for example, a deity that has the authority to establish a moral code declaratively.– Bob ——– Technology Industry