Morality and Type

[DividedsGhost]

I don't why I didn't think of this before because it's actually pretty simple. Consider the following

Ethics (moral, amoral, immoral)

Strong Fi-valued -> decides with moral consideration
Strong Fe-nonvalued -> acts with some passionate/persona consideration

Weak Fi-valued -> wants to decide with moral consideration
Weak Fe-nonvalued -> wants to act with no passionate/persona consideration

Strong Fi-nonvalued -> decides with amoral consideration
Strong Fe-valued -> acts with passionate/persona consideration

Weak Fi-nonvalued -> wants to decide with no moral consideration (immoral)
Weak Fe-valued -> wants to act with passionate/persona consideration


It would be interesting to apply ethical philosophies to each. But I don't know that much about philosophy. So does anyone that knows a lot about the different studied philosophies of the world want to assign some categories based on the above?

The only ones that stand out for me would be

Strong Fi-nonvalued -> decides with amoral consideration
as probably a moral nihilist.

Strong Fi-valued -> decides with moral consideration
as probably some form of idealist.

[stray]

So basically, Fi has dominion over morality. While can investigate just about everything else under the sun..except moral considerations. While is limited to morality and dumbfounded with all else.

[EyeSeeCold]

Strong types can be amoral.

[Igxfl]

Strong types can be amoral.

Example? I haven't seen this.

[marooned]

that was so not a morality test

[EyeSeeCold]

Example? I haven't seen this.

I admit I have no personal examples, but the concept of amorality is to rise above the notion of morality. That doesn't mean these people are necessarily "bad" or "good", they just don't see through those limited lenses. An example of the approach is Utilitarianism. I think Satanism and Nihilism are others.

[DividedsGhost]

This thread is dumb. Can't you guys find a more interesting angle to talk about instead of this 'morality' shit?

Besides, the egos apparently suck at morality anyway considering their performances on morality test lol: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=35121

Yeah, but dude, that's kind of the whole point. If say an ILE put much mental effort into Fi, should we really consider them as ILE? Their Ti would operate outside the bounds of what is considered moral, considering constructs that don't have to relate to the relationships of the people around them. I mean sure, an ILE could be moral and probably has to to an extent. But the difference is between feeling a positive motivation to do so and feeling irritated or annoyed by having to be.

I'm just not sure I could see much point into typing someone an Fi ego if the consideration of what is best for people around them isn't of greater motivational concern. It just makes sense that from just looking at how the types are constructed that XLE would be seen as immoral compared to the other types.

My definition of morality just refers to established views of how we should treat one another. So going against that isn't truly immoral by any objective standards, but immoral by definition in relation to everyone else.

It's just the model and probably necessary for the relations to manifest. If you feel it is inadequate, what would you rather suggest in place of that?

And that test was bullshit. There's no objective standard of reference for viewing consistency of morals. It was more of a test of whether or not someone can use good enough Ti to be consistent without assuming anything other than what they are given.

[Igxfl]

It was more of a test of whether or not someone can use good enough Ti to be consistent without assuming anything other than what they are given.

Which, of course, explains the poor performance of Fi egos.

[ashlesha]

My definition of morality just refers to established views of how we should treat one another.

so Fi = morality and morality = established views of how people should treat eachother? am i getting you right?

do you honestly think that anyone would claim established views of morality as being so important to them that it would color everything about their worldview or that the most important quality that they seek in a person is their ability to conform to the the most widespread rule of ethics? do you think that all Fi egos would support genocide or slavery if those were the popularly accepted values of their time and place (and not just some of them but ALL of them, because Fi = established views of how people should be treated?)

maybe i'm getting you wrong.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

OP: Try using a term that is less loaded.

[EyeSeeCold]

OP: Try using a term that is less loaded.

egos, especially Base, are hypersensitive to cause-effect?

[ashlesha]

OP: Try using a term that is less loaded.

i was trying to keep an open mind when i saw the op because i thought maybe his conception of morality wouldn't be something so insulting, but he defined how he meant it in a later post.

[Exodus]

Weak Fi-nonvalued -> wants to decide with no moral consideration (immoral)

pretty sure that's the same as amoral.

[stray]

Is Socrates because he protested against the mob mentality of his countrymen, and plead that they stop and listen to reason.. to live "examined" lives?

[Bluenoir]

What does ethics have to do with morality? This seems to be an equivocation on the word "ethics"

I was under the impression was about the maintenance/understanding the relational attitudes people have with one another.

, the recognition of emotional states.

Am I missing something here?

I thought morality was more of a prouduct of cultural influence, as well as the human instincts/need for social co-operation.

[Exodus]

What does ethics have to do with morality? This seems to be an equivocation on the word "ethics"

I was under the impression was about the maintenance/understanding the relational attitudes people have with one another.
, the recognition of emotional states.

Am I missing something here?

Good question. On a practical level, ethics exist in order to define these relational attitudes. If they are considered on a more theoretical level then some comes into play. IMO has nothing to do with "ethics" per se, much like has nothing to do with "logic" per se.

[stray]

Am I missing something here?

No. Thank you.

[Bluenoir]

Good question. On a practical level, ethics exist in order to define these relational attitudes. If they are considered on a more theoretical level then some comes into play. IMO has nothing to do with "ethics" per se, much like has nothing to do with "logic" per se.

Thanks for your response. You've given me something to consider here.

I think it's a little immature to put something as open ended and nuance as "morality" down to nothing but how you vaule your "ethics" functions though.

[stray]

If they are considered on a more theoretical level then some comes into play. IMO

And they will be considered. or may go about it in a different manner, but I don't see how it's an avoidable subject for either one (I would say that a Se type's inclination to theorize would usually be more emergent and directly situational). Outside some people being constantly distracted with their own narcissism and juvenile interests (which can happen), they're going to be moral in some way. It's a shared interest across all of the types.

Hopefully this doesn't look too conventional, but one could even look at "archetypes" and come to some impression that morality is still a noticable trait in types. I could see the of "Zhukov" being more naturalistic in their worldviews. Not necessarily reaching idealistic conclusions about morality, but being practical and honorable in some way, more or less. Quixote and Robespierre are very much idealists though. What does Dostoevsky have that necessarily makes him more moral? That wasn't the distinction being made.

[munenori2]

Deontology

Immanuel Kant's approach to ethics is naturally a rather approach.

Moral sentiments

Hume discusses what I tend to view as a more one.

The Good

Aristotelian ethics are executed using a more well rounded logical approach, perhaps in a more intuitive fashion. Considering it right now, I'm more inclined to see him perhaps as an INTj like silverchris proposed. His arrival at what 'the good' is does strike me as more than anything else.

Daoist ethics

If you take those aspects of Daoism that touch on what we might call a view on ethics, it's more of an amoral perspective, but you could easily call it an example of an ethical theory.

Mohism

Mohism is probably an excellent example of ethics, particularly LSE.

I'll try to think of some more.

[krieger]

i'm definitely consequentialist > deontologist. i've always held that the idea that you can't kill 1 person to save millions just because doing so involves leveraging your agency in a "forbidden" direction is completely absurd. catastrophically wrong even.

the reason why killing is not a good idea has to do with tail end risk (i.e. you kill the person and things pan out completely different than you expect; now you've still killed a person - the lower bound to the damage done is very high) and imperfect epistemics (i.e. your understanding of the situation is not infallible, hence the tail end risk), not with a final result analysis of the situation.

[stray]

i'm definitely consequentialist > deontologist. i've always held that the idea that you can't kill 1 person to save millions just because doing so involves leveraging your agency in a "forbidden" direction is completely absurd. catastrophically wrong even.

How about if the person you were killing was yourself?

@muenori: Those are pretty good.

I think Confucianism might be Gamma in general.

[mikemex]

Aristotelian ethics are executed using a more well rounded logical approach, perhaps in a more intuitive fashion. Considering it right now, I'm more inclined to see him perhaps as an INTj like silverchris proposed. His arrival at what 'the good' is does strike me as more than anything else.

A Ti-LSI can use intuition from time to time. But that by no chance turns an LSI into a LII. It should be evident that Aristotle was Beta and not Alpha.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

egos, especially Base, are hypersensitive to cause-effect?

"Cause-effect" is pretty broad, perhaps too broad to pin on one function.

[EyeSeeCold]

"Cause-effect" is pretty broad, perhaps too broad to pin on one function.

Definitely, to me, cause-effect are the Field / Subject / Relational / Introverted functions.

Okay, so by "Cause-effect", in terms of , I mean the cause-effect relationships of well-defined(clearly observable) behavior that happens over time.

By "well-defined" I mean actions that you can do. Like "walk the dog", or "kiss this person", or "eat this sandwich" or "curse out this person".

By "happens over time", I mean movement.

Would you agree?

[EyeSeeCold]

I think this is what gives the attribute of morality.

For example:
interprets the long term cause-effect relationship of explicit temporal behavior - conscientious
interprets the long term cause-effect relationship of explicit spatial behavior - cautious

[Cuddly McFluffles]

Definitely, to me, cause-effect are the Field / Subject / Relational / Introverted functions.

I think it can apply to any function.

Okay, so by "Cause-effect", in terms of , I mean the cause-effect relationships of well-defined(clearly observable) behavior that happens over time.

By "well-defined" I mean actions that you can do. Like "walk the dog", or "kiss this person", or "eat this sandwich" or "curse out this person".

By "happens over time", I mean movement.

Would you agree?

I'm wondering if we are on the same page here. Cause-effect applies in that pays attention to how its words and actions affect the other person (and vice versa). If that is what you are trying to say, then we are in agreement on that point. However, given that cause-effect is not specific to , you cannot take the term on its own as a substitute for "morality".

[Cuddly McFluffles]

I think this is what gives the attribute of morality.

For example:
interprets the long term cause-effect relationship of explicit temporal behavior - conscientious
interprets the long term cause-effect relationship of explicit spatial behavior - cautious

What is this in English?

[EyeSeeCold]

I think it can apply to any function.

If we refer to the IM aspects, only the Introverted aspects observe cause-effect. The Extraverted aspects observe behavior but are blind to the effect, or the development of said behavior.

In practice, this crudely equates to:
Extraverts acting but not considering
Introverts considering but not acting.

I'm wondering if we are on the same page here. Cause-effect applies in that pays attention to how its words and actions affect the other person (and vice versa). If that is what you are trying to say, then yes, I agree.

Yes, that's what I mean.

What is this in English?

It means, for example that:
IxFjs monitor temporal developments. X action will lead to X state
INxps monitor spatial developments. X state will lead to X action

So IxFjs will watch their and other people's actions for fear of some unwanted state.
So INxps will watch their and other people's/things' states for fear of some unwanted action.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

I edited my post. You may want to take a look at it.

[DividedsGhost]

pretty sure that's the same as amoral.

i was trying to keep an open mind when i saw the op because i thought maybe his conception of morality wouldn't be something so insulting, but he defined how he meant it in a later post.

Wait, wait. Let me get my definitions out here first. I think you're misunderstanding me.

Moral Person - Consideration of the established rules, relationships, and customs of a culture or society of importance. These things are seen as rather concrete. They are seen as everlasting or at least supported to be. *This boils down to a strong sense of how we should treat one another...basically...I'm sorry, but it does*

Amoral Person - Is not really sure that these rules, relationships, and customs really exist in any concrete sense. They see them as loosely connected and easily changed and influenced. Can attempt to create a sense of rules, relationships, and customs without really believing that what they are doing is concrete or will last very long even and isn't really supported to be everlasting.

Immoral Person - Consideration of the established rules, relationships, and customs of a culture or society as not important. These rules, relationships, and customs are seen as self-serving or a manifestation of trying to control the freedoms of individuals and groups.

So for the record, when I refer to immoral versus moral I'm not talking about sympathy or empathy. Fi-PoLRs can be very empathetic. But that's not the point of this.

I just wanted to clarify a bit the concepts. I feel this distinction is important unless someone can give me a good reason why they think it is incorrect.

So, anyway...

[EyeSeeCold]

I edited my post. You may want to take a look at it.

---

However, given that cause-effect is not specific to , you cannot take the term on its own as a substitute for "morality".

Oh, I'm not. I was showing how morality exists partly in the aspect of . Morality that deals with being conscientious, at least.

[stray]

Moral Person - Consideration of the established rules, relationships, and customs of a culture or society of importance. These things are seen as rather concrete. They are seen as everlasting or at least supported to be. *This boils down to a strong sense of how we should treat one another...basically...I'm sorry, but it does*[url]

A person could be highly moral, and yet at odds with the surrounding rules and culture. They may have more general, abstract concerns about morality. Or they might be so moral that may even try to reform the surrounding culture.

Some of the most famous philosophers/moralists were doing things along these lines. Either they were killed for it, caused a ruckus, or they were alone in their work. Socrates, Gandhi, Jesus, MLK Jr., Joan of Arc, etc.. No matter how expressed it, you couldn't accuse them of not being moral in some manner. And their morality didn't entail any of this cookie cutter, "established rules" angle on things. That's very one dimensional.

[munenori2]

A Ti-LSI can use intuition from time to time. But that by no chance turns an LSI into a LII. It should be evident that Aristotle was Beta and not Alpha.

This is actually my original typing for Aristotle, as he was in many ways a hierarchical apologist or justifier. It's just the way he arrives at what constitutes the highest good (something being desirable for itself, not desirable for the sake of any other good, and all other goods being desirable for its sake) struck me as an approach hallmarked by and involving use of his PoLR so centrally in his logic is somewhat problematic.

[DividedsGhost]

A person could be highly moral, and yet at odds with the surrounding rules and culture. They may have more general, abstract concerns about morality. Or they might be so moral that may even try to reform the surrounding culture.

Some of the most famous philosophers/moralists were doing things along these lines. Either they were killed for it, caused a ruckus, or they were alone in their work. Socrates, Gandhi, Jesus, MLK Jr., Joan of Arc, etc.. No matter how expressed it, you couldn't accuse them of not being moral in some manner. And their morality didn't entail any of this cookie cutter, "established rules" angle on things. That's very one dimensional.

And these types were not Fi-valuing by my definitions. I've clarified the concepts. Don't argue this one dimensional bullshit. I know better than anyone the abstract nature of morality, but this is how socionics uses them to understand some of the relations. There is nothing cookie-cutter about the definitions. Most of these people were killed for going against established society.

You just don't like the fact that I'm using "morality" to mean something you don't think encompasses the nature of it "well enough" since no definition will ever suffice anyway. You complain a lot for someone that hasn't even "attempted" to clarify anything. Nit-picking is not constructive and shows me your ignorance.

These threads are meant to be constructive; if you people are going to criticize and critic you should have another idea in mind because just attacking ideas stops discussion and makes people not want to discuss this anymore. Quite being pricks.

Edit: I don't include Jesus since I no nothing about his actual life, and neither does anyone else.

[rat1]

eh.. Fi is more about personal boundaries / attachments. That is a feeling of morality but the moral dogmas don't come from Fi. Norms like that are more Fe / Te. Ti can also be regulatory, though. It's just instead of ignoring you the person will quote you and berate you with information, like Bolt.

[stray]

These threads are meant to be constructive; if you people are going to criticize and critic you should have another idea in mind because just attacking ideas stops discussion and makes people not want to discuss this anymore. Quite being pricks.

Sigh. Ok, buddy. I'll be constructive.

You sound like you need someone to suck your dick. Asap. Hope that works out for you.

Happy?

[Cuddly McFluffles]

And these types were not Fi-valuing by my definitions. I've clarified the concepts. Don't argue this one dimensional bullshit. I know better than anyone the abstract nature of morality, but this is how socionics uses them to understand some of the relations. There is nothing cookie-cutter about the definitions. Most of these people were killed for going against established society.

You just don't like the fact that I'm using "morality" to mean something you don't think encompasses the nature of it "well enough" since no definition will ever suffice anyway. You complain a lot for someone that hasn't even "attempted" to clarify anything. Nit-picking is not constructive and shows me your ignorance.

These threads are meant to be constructive; if you people are going to criticize and critic you should have another idea in mind because just attacking ideas stops discussion and makes people not want to discuss this anymore. Quite being pricks.

Edit: I don't include Jesus since I no nothing about his actual life, and neither does anyone else.

No. types do not automatically support and conform to the surrounding values and traditions simply because they are majority sentiment. Nor are quadra people incapable of doing so. You claim your view is socionically supported. Where is your source? While we're at it, I'm curious to know how you define to begin with.

You want something you feel is constructive. Alright. Maybe you should scrap this idea and quit trying to describe as absolutely bound by tradition and majority view. It's not that clear cut, and it's not that simple. Also, there's no need to be insulting just because you feel people aren't responding to you correctly.

[Jarno]

.

permaban and then back in a week. hehehe.

[Exodus]

I think Confucianism might be Gamma in general.

Yeah, totally. Confucius was probably ESI, maybe EII.