Integrity
Integrity comprises the personal inner sense of "wholeness" deriving from honesty and consistent uprightness of character. These are of course usually assessed from some point of view, such as that of a given ethical tradition or in the context of an ethical relationship. One who for instance said bad things about their own grandmother might be perceived as lacking a form of integrity.Many people appear to use the word "integrity" in a vague manner as an alternative to the perceived political incorrectness of using blatantly moralistic terms such as "good" or ethical. In this sense it often refers to a refusal to engage in lying, blaming or other behaviour that generally is thought to evade accountability. It may be a sense of etiquette that runs very deep, as in Confucianism or the political virtues.
There is however a more formal study of the term and its meaning in a modern ethics. It is often understood not only as a refusal to engage in behavior that evades responsibility, but as understanding of different modes or styles in which some discourse takes place, and in which truth is discovered.
An adversarial process for instance has a certain type of integrity, in which those engaged in it commit not only to advancing the case for "their own" side, but also to reveal where required evidence of use to the other side, follow certain rules in the debate, and accept rulings from a judge or arbitrator. Those subverting this would be seen to lack some integrity, and it would quite possibly hurt their case. So philosophy of law is concerned with integrity of a practical or process style - integrity as measure of trust in results, which in turn determines trust in authority itself. Integrity rules themselves are likely set so as to maintain this trust and thus argument is in an authoritative mode: "pleading" to it, asking "relief", and such, as a means of demonstrating acceptance of a common regime of judgement and redress. Those who reject this and insist on some other form of integrity may be found in contempt of court or simply found guilty.
In philosophy of mathematics, mathematical proof is often said to have a certain integrity, which can be weakly or strongly tested, as part of the process of accepting finished mathematics and differentiating it from folk mathematics. This is a sort of definitive or formal integrity, which is assumed to be different from simple respect for authority - one believes a mathematical result has some integrity not because it came from a prior famous mathematician of integrity, as would be the case with a jurist perhaps, but because it can be defined as tautology and is demonstrably part of a larger and consistent body of mathematics.
In philosophy of science, there are some clear differentiators between either of the above modes, since science is concerned not with authority or definition but with investigation. The scientific method is thought to have a certain base integrity, and deviance from it or shortcuts taken or people being accepted on their word are all thought to reduce the integrity of results - in effect it is a very organized distrust, by contrast to the legal method which is a very organized trust in prior judgements and precedents. In fact, science consists in general of challenging, not upholding or verifying, prior dogma.
There are also studies of integrity as it may exist in actions taken by the body, the body itself or its wellness, the mind, its cognition and conciousness, and politics, e.g. the political virtues or views of consensus, e.g. "consent of the governed". These are covered in articles on those specific avenues of investigation.
