.
INTjs and high moral values
.
I think most Alpha NT's have high moral values, it's because of their super-ego Fi that makes them not talk about it so much.
When they do talk about it, it's in a universal sense like Kant, Spinoza, etc.
The super-ego is a area of perfection, it acts as a conscience and Alpha NT's practice restraint in their moral talk. In Alpha's it's blocked with Se so in Alpha NT's I find it's a strict and conservative form of morality that really doesn't tolerate hypocrisy. I personally try to avoid talking in moral terms even if I have convictions towards that sort of subject because conventional moral arguments veer towards hypocrisy and is often merely a ploy to gain trust, votes, some sort of self-promotion, which is more ego actions.
I see alpha NTs as having mostly a flexible and variable sense of morality.
when they are E5s or E7s, which is often the case, they have a totally flexible morality to the point of ammorality.
my dad is the only LII i know and he is probably the person i know who is most strict and outspoken about moral issues. he has a really firm confidence in his beliefs that i think comes from Ti.. his opinions come together in a way that makes a lot of cohesive sense to him and he won't budge at all. sometimes its funny to rile him up by casually saying something like, "i hope gay people will be able to get married soon" and watching him EXPLODE lol.
i think he's probably sort of an unusual LII, though, 5w6 sx/so, very 8-ish, and crazy Fe everywhere.
We can view a person's morality along an axis with "Sex" marked at one end and "Death" at the other. I shall parallel this dichotomy with the age-old contrast of creation vs. destruction. In a world with no objective morality, we can view ethics and morality as an ideological virus. The first purpose of all "life" is self-preservation. Therefore, in order for ethics to survive as a system, it must substantiate its own existence: it must create. The quintessential element that comprises ethics is creation. In order to preserve ethics, we must construct it closely to the element of creation as possible and let natural selection take its course.
If we consider this simple path of morality, we can begin to expand. All actions begin as having no morality. They are ethically "0." The more they embody creation, the more ethically positive they are, while the more they embody destruction, they more ethically negative they are. The more complex an action is, the more its ethical quality is multiplied. At this point, any attentive reader should be able to grasp where I'm going. Sex is the natural apex of creation, and death the ultimate apex of destruction.
Of course, our model need not be so complex, which is why we introduce the simple dichotomy of Sex vs. Death. The more an action related to sex, the more good it is. The more it relates to death, the more evil it. Any action relating equally to both, such as murder-rape cases, is morally neutral, or grey.
Originally Posted by laghlagh
interesting story... also, keep up the good work
.
At least for me, there's a difference between what I intellectually believe to be morally correct and what I viscerally feel in a particular situation. In general, it might be described as the difference between total utilitarianism (type-1 thinking) and rule utilitarianism or deontology (type-2 thinking). According to type-1 thinking, the morally correct action is the action which most conduces to the common welfare; according to type-2 thinking, the morally correct action is the action which conforms to certain principles.
For example, say that an old relative of yours is dying. Shortly before his death, he takes you aside privately and makes you promise to scatter his ashes from an airplane after he's dead; since he's adamant about it, you agree to do so in order to appease him. A few weeks later, he dies and is cremated; should you uphold your promise, or is it morally acceptable to renege? Intellectually, I see no reason to fulfill such a promise; after all, your relative certainly won't care if you don't. On the other hand, if I were placed in such a situation, I would feel guilty if I were to have lied, so I would act in accordance with his wishes despite the pointlessness of my actions. This is because my conception of justice, which relies on type-2 thinking, is far more deeply entrenched in my mind than a detached analysis of morality, which relies on type-1 thinking. Type-2 thinking also arises in much more mundane situations: I vote despite knowing with 100% certainty that my vote will not change the outcome of the election and can therefore do no good, I don't steal from people even if I need the money more than they do (nor do I steal from people and donate the proceeds to charity), etc.
Perhaps one axis on which you could categorize the type-2 thinking I exhibit is the cooperation-competition axis. People who fall on the right side of this axis might believe that living is a struggle, that people should work hard without expecting any help from society, that each person is individually responsible for his own happiness, and other such ideas. On the other hand, I believe that we all have a responsibility to attend to the needs of everybody -- society should focus on helping everyone attain their intellectual, social, emotional, and moral (but not pecuniary) potential; those who are most successful should not revel in their superiority but aid those who are worse off. Moreover, I believe that exploiting other people is wrong, even if they acquiesce to the exploitation; in particular, I detest people who prey upon others to further their own goals. Hence, I have an anti-capitalist political viewpoint.
It is because of my disdain for people who are morally lacking that I might resign if I had an overly greedy boss. Logically, I would know that I could easily be replaced and that my action would be in vain; on the other hand, I would feel guilty if I abetted such an abhorrent person. Indeed, if I were given the chance, I might even try to punish those who engaged in wrongdoing, even by unscrupulous means. That is, type-2 thinking might be in direct contradiction to type-1 thinking: rather than trying to maximize the welfare of all, including the venal, I might try to bring "justice" (in a sort of karma-balancing way) by reducing the utility of the guilty. It's really a rather simplistic outlook: the good should be helped and the bad punished; doing otherwise tarnishes one's character. Such thinking might be seen as overly demanding since it denies the nuances of reality and focuses on ethical purity and black-and-white thinking.
To give an example of such a contradiction, type-2 thinking might lead me to hate soldiers engaged in an aggressive war: since they are paid to bring ruin and death to millions of people and obey such abominable orders rather than resisting, they must be evil and deserving of punishment. On the other hand, type-1 thinking would remind me that they might have good, albeit misguided, intentions, that they too are suffering, that they have been consistently lied to and raised in an environment that limited their choices, that objecting to fight would result in a jail sentence for them without lessening the barbarity of the war, etc.
If I were to have a conversation about morality, I would employ logical type-1 thinking and could come across as exceedingly morally permissive. So in a conversation, I might say something along the lines of "Did you cheat on your wife/husband? Well, you did nothing wrong; after all, what she/he doesn't know can't hurt her/him" or "So you're an evil minion of Darth Vader's? Well, I guess you've got to make a living somehow". Even if someone did something wrong, I would be very unlikely to confront him about it. However, beneath the surface would lurk emotional type-2 thinking: while I might tolerate such behavior in others, I would never do it myself. Of course, I would be loathe to reveal these type-2 values to others -- I know that they are irrational and occasionally immoral -- but I would still abide by them.
Actually since murder would kill the baby that would be negative. But I'm pleased to learn if I rape at least as many people as a murder, I'll go to purgatory or above.
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
I'd like to hear an LII actually make an argument of that nature.
Removed at User Request
I agree.
Broadly speaking, I think the following is true:
Explicit, concrete, written* rules for behaviour = Ti
Implicit, unspoken rules for behaviour = Fi
*Not necessarily actually written down, but could be easily.
When you take an implicit, unspoken rule, and formulate it and make it explicit, you're taking Fi and making it Ti. Fi-Egos find this annoying and unnecessary, while Ti-Egos find it a relief. Of course, Ti-Creative types may just go ahead and break that rule after it's been formulated, but they do prefer the rules they're breaking to be explicit rather than implicit.
Quaero Veritas.
I'm using morality in a specific manner.
Morality concerns notions of good and bad but not everything bad is illegal. Law is different, it is necessarily enforced mechanism, this doesn't mean however that Fi super ego types do not have a sense of good and bad, but they maybe not talk in those terms and would rather deal in law.
Notions of good and bad and preference does pertain to Fi in socionics. Fi deals with polarity, attraction and repulsion of information.
Why is Ti not morality, because it aims to be objective, and when one aims to be objective and preference is something that must be eliminated.
How's this, tell me what other function pertains to morality?
Also there is no association with functions and actually being a decent person, it has to do with speech patterns and means of persuasion. Of course there are many Fi ego types that could be viewed as totally bad/evil by other people with different moral perspective. You need to read what I say.
Anyways Mafia clans talk often about family, how to treat their family correctly, and other forms of morality, such as their manners of behavior. They also are often formerly rebel groups that formed to fight against invaders so their morality was a clannish one. They call themselves men of honor/men of respect. Also they work thru a family based and race based system of membership. There is a significant amount of moral terminology in Mafia culture.
Removed at User Request
Even so, I don't think its common for INTjs to place a great deal of trust in any individual "written" rule. It is more like these are viewed hypothetically and in some cases pragmatically.Broadly speaking, I think the following is true:
Explicit, concrete, written* rules for behaviour = Ti
Implicit, unspoken rules for behaviour = Fi
The basis of certainty in alpha NTs is Ne, which is all about taking in account massive context shifts and far off contingencies.
There is nothing to do with Ti dominance and judging, or even Ti dominance and law. An LSI may want to play prosecutor, but someone else will usually be the judge.
A surprising amount of Fs sit as judges.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote