Good and Evil revisited

[tcaudilllg]

Recent discussions of beta Ni as "the intent or bid to avoid negative outcomes" has led me to question what its subfunctions are. I had previously asserted that the subfunctions of Ni were processors of ethics and sanity, however after having an internal dialogue over the subject last night, it seems to me that standards of ethics and sanity cannot be totally divorced from culture: right and wrong are moral judgments we make based on agreement of personal conduct with cultural expectation, in the same way that we make judgments on "proper" vs "rude" behavior. Thus there is a matter of the individual (or culture's) tolerance for the conduct which determines whether a thing is right or wrong, and as such, right and wrong must be ethical judgments declared by alpha Fe in accordance with alpha Fe attitudes.

Then properly, we say a person is "in the right" or "in the wrong" by their immediate behavioral choices, and "good" or "evil" as a factor of judging their motivations relative to our selected tolerance levels.

If ethical determinations are made by alpha Fe, then how is sanity asserted vs insanity?

[Korpsy Knievel]

Recent discussions of beta Ni as "the intent or bid to avoid negative outcomes" has led me to question what its subfunctions are. I had previously asserted that the subfunctions of Ni were processors of ethics and sanity, however after having an internal dialogue over the subject last night, it seems to me that standards of ethics and sanity cannot be totally divorced from culture: right and wrong are moral judgments we make based on agreement of personal conduct with cultural expectation, in the same way that we make judgments on "proper" vs "rude" behavior. Thus there is a matter of the individual (or culture's) tolerance for the conduct which determines whether a thing is right or wrong, and as such, right and wrong must be ethical judgments declared by alpha Fe in accordance with alpha Fe attitudes.

Then properly, we say a person is "in the right" or "in the wrong" by their immediate behavioral choices, and "good" or "evil" as a factor of judging their motivations relative to our selected tolerance levels.

If ethical determinations are made by alpha Fe, then how is sanity asserted vs insanity?

Easy: A sane person would be ashamed to trot out shit like this.

[Crispy]

There is no such thing as good and evil. Value-based judgments are baseless at every level. Everyone is born neutral and then reciprocate the environment they were born into. Behavior works a lot like accents do (except mine of course). If you are born Italian you might say "It's a me, Mario". If you are born in Nor-Cal you might say " hella hella hella hella hella hella". If you are born in the south you might say "I'ma go get me a nigga and beat his ass". Being born/raised in a bad environment is no fault of your own as you may know, so calling someone evil when they are products of their environment is erroneous. This goes for anything from bigotry, to corruption, to serial killers.

[rat1]

Knowing how a person became fucked up doesn't change the fact they are fucked up. Do you believe there is such a thing as objectively bad music? Music has a mathematical basis. Mathematics can prove something to be flawed or coherent. I believe if you had a way of writing a script of music as an equation, and you wrote out some Kesha and compared it with Nirvana.. Kesha would be a mathematical flaw and Nirvana would be mathematical perfection. So if art has a mathematical basis, isn't it possible everything has a mathematical basis? And then why is good and evil any different? On top of that even if good and evil had no universal basis (which I think it does), the subjective experience of it still exists (and that experience is very real).

[Crispy]

MOVE! Cause this is Ke$ha!

Yes the mathematical basis you are referring to is the Healthy/Unhealthy scale (which is synonymous with the scale of Good/Evil). Health of course refers to the combination of Physical/Spiritual/Mental/Emotional healths.

Yes evil still exists in their actions, but to cast the evilness blame on them is to add insult to injury. No one creates themselves to be unhealthy or evil.

[Bluenoir]

There is no such thing as good and evil. Value-based judgments are baseless at every level. Everyone is born neutral and then reciprocate the environment they were born into. Behavior works a lot like accents do (except mine of course). If you are born Italian you might say "It's a me, Mario". If you are born in Nor-Cal you might say " hella hella hella hella hella hella". If you are born in the south you might say "I'ma go get me a nigga and beat his ass". Being born/raised in a bad environment is no fault of your own as you may know, so calling someone evil when they are products of their environment is erroneous. This goes for anything from bigotry, to corruption, to serial killers.

I don't agree people are born "blank state", but I by no means purport genetic determinism. What you seem to not be taking into account the deliberate nature of intentionally "malevolent" actions done by people.

I agree that environment has a tremendous influence on the psychology/vaules and judgements of an individual, but I still see people as individuals accountable for deliberate intentions. This is by no means a black and white good/evil idea of accountability though.

I can't accept the idea of "society" made them do it.

No one creates themselves to be unhealthy or evil

Not true. People do do things purely for the sake of hurting others. We've had several stabbings in Melbourne that were commited just beacuse. Are you saying that these people (The perpetrators of random violence) are mere products, holding no actual acountability for what they have done?

[Crispy]

What else drives people to commit (violent) crimes other than societal or socioeconomic conditions?

[Capitalist Pig]

What else drives people to commit (violent) crimes other than societal or socioeconomic conditions?

Human emotion.

[Bluenoir]

What else drives people to commit (violent) crimes other than societal or socioeconomic conditions?

I never said the mentioned things are not variables. However I don't believe in the environmental determinism you seem to imply.

Of course it's very neuance, but regardless of what motivated an action of a person, the person still made a cognitive decision to commit whatever the action may be.

Provided the perpetrator is sane, they are at fault. Regardless of what societal condition motivated them.

A random stabbing of an Indian student was not commited because the perpetrator was "compelled" by his racism that was installed on him. The perpetrator stabbed the student (whilst motivated by installed racism) beacuse the perpetrator chose to do so.

[rat1]

MOVE! Cause this is Ke$ha!

Yes the mathematical basis you are referring to is the Healthy/Unhealthy scale (which is synonymous with the scale of Good/Evil). Health of course refers to the combination of Physical/Spiritual/Mental/Emotional healths.

Yes evil still exists in their actions, but to cast the evilness blame on them is to add insult to injury. No one creates themselves to be unhealthy or evil.

At what point does a person have to take personal responsibility and transcend their circumstances?.. no longer be determined by them? Criminal persecution is typically (when it is well applied) an issue of practicality more than punishment. Evil is just a word, and blame is just identifying the problem. But also remember that circumstances are only half the equation. There are inherent qualities of people. Some things are born healthy and others are genetically mutated..

[Crispy]

Provided the perpetrator is sane, they are at fault. Regardless of what societal condition motivated them.

So instead of asking the question "What societal conditions can we work on to reduce crime?" we should be asking "What is the best way to further punish victims of our society that act out of place?"?

[rat1]

All criminal punishment needs to be concerned with is keeping the social structure running. It's a matter of practicality. The human element is best dealt with on a human level, not with social regulation; although you can say the economic productivity of a society contributes to personal happiness, and a thriving society is not a criminal society.

[Bluenoir]

So instead of asking the question "What societal conditions can we work on to reduce crime?" we should be asking "What is the best way to further punish victims of our society that act out of place?"?

I never implied anything of the sort. Certainly, prevention is always better than retribution, as retribution can not undo what has happend.

Still, "evil" if you will, exists. We should address it. Denying the autonomy of the individuals at play in a crime to me seems like a refusal to admit that some people are just bastards.

[Crispy]

Some things are born healthy and others are genetically mutated..

The "It's Genetic" argument is gone over pretty thoroughly here.
A good paragraph from it:

It’s a widespread misconception and it’s a potentially fairly dangerous one. One reason that the biological explanation for violence, one reason that hypothesis is potentially dangerous — it’s not just misleading it can really do harm — is because if you believe that, you could very easily say:

“Well, there’s nothing we can do to change the predisposition people have to becoming violent. All we can do, if somebody comes violent is punish them — lock them up or execute them — but we don’t need to worry about changing the social environment or the social preconditions that may lead people to become violent because that’s irrelevant.”

If the article sounds weird it's from a transcript of people talking in interviews.

Still, "evil" if you will, exists. We should address it. Denying the autonomy of the individuals at play in a crime to me seems like a refusal to admit that some people are just bastards.

Bastards? Plenty. Irreparable bastards? Not a one.

[tcaudilllg]

A random stabbing of an Indian student was not commited because the perpetrator was "compelled" by his racism that was installed on him. The perpetrator stabbed the student (whilst motivated by installed racism) beacuse the perpetrator chose to do so.

This is actually inconsistent with supersocion theory's attitude model: a racism-disposed person is such because they do not value cultural diversity. That's not their fault, because to the extent a person determines their values their ability to deal with their own demons plays a part. "How much does the amygdala interfere with cognitive analysis" is the real question....

I think that positivist extremism begins with false assumptions and mistakes, but proceeds through a "looking on the bright side" and gradual identification with one's own corrupt role. The bad becomes good, arrogance becomes resolve, and ignorance becomes bliss. From there the negativist argument becomes so much empty static, until the person has made grave personal mistakes that they can never live down, if they look at themselves honestly, without completely collapsing their self image and identifying with images of obstinance, cruelty, belligerence, paranoia... all these negative stigmas that drive you basically, towards Glenn Beck status. At least Beck acknowledges he's a jerk... so many conservative extremists don't.


As hinted at in the above, I have discovered the answer to my previous question. Insanity/psychotic disorder is a factor of lacking values that the majority possess, thus setting the stage for a judgment of intolerance in light of cultural expectations (always defined by the genetic majority). As such, we say that psychotic disorder, as we conceive of it, is a negative gamma Fi aspect that correlates with a negative alpha Fe judgment.


Crispy in my experience, extremists go from nice guys to bastards and back again depending on the specific conditions. Although anyone will go rogue given certain experiences, extremists (and sociopaths) are distinct from the rest of us in that their range of "go rogue" conditions is wider than the range for the rest of us as such. Thus where a thing may not deeply affect us, due to our internal resiliency and fortitude, to them it may be jarring and possibly even transformative.

[rat1]

That article sucks. The dumbass who wrote it manages to imply that acknowledging genetically inherent traits will also dismiss social / economic influences, along with any other influences. It doesn't. They're all factors of influence. Why the author takes an exclusive position makes zero sense. How can you properly deal with a problem if you are in denial of its cause? I see no reason why we should disacknowledge the genetic influence simply because of the ramifications it has on our ability to easily deal with the problem. That's so stupid.. it amazes me. And by the way, ever consider we may be able to medically cure some criminals one day? Like with the right pills, or maybe gene modification or scanning infants for serial killer brains? The first step of course would be acknowledging there's a problem. What do you think psychiatry is? It's essentially modifying socially undesirable behavior which has a biological basis.
And I know genetic traits have an influence on moral behavior. i.e. serial killers tend have frontal lobe brain deficiency, and that's genetically inherited.
You can't ignore the truth of the matter just because it's convenient for you to do so.

[Crispy]

You can't ignore the truth of the matter just because it's convenient for you to do so.

I haven't. I've simply stated evil is made (through environmental influence) and not born. "Born Evil" is a religious connotation that dates back to the first utterance of the "Antichrist". They aren't neglecting to acknowledge genetics involvement, but showing how negligible it is relative to environmental impact of behavior.

[rat1]

Negligible because you fail at biology, and are shortsighted in what medicine may ultimately provide to fix the problems. Negligible - synonym for ignorable.

Ive never claimed a person is born evil. That's would be dismissing the social / environmental factors involved. Instead I said genetic factors are involved. A person is born with a genetic predisposition. All factors converge to create the person, and we should examine all factors equally - not dismiss some of them because they are supposed 'negligible influences' (i.e.: I am ignorant about how it all works)

[tcaudilllg]

I haven't. I've simply stated evil is made (through environmental influence) and not born. "Born Evil" is a religious connotation that dates back to the first utterance of the "Antichrist".

Good observation.

They aren't neglecting to acknowledge genetics involvement, but showing how negligible it is relative to environmental impact of behavior.

Well it's like this: if the environment hadn't permitted -- had the Depression not happened --, ****** would have been just another fringe party leader. By chance of the Depression he managed to position himself to become what he ultimately did. There are hundreds -- no, thousands -- of would-be Adolf ******s living in the United States today, and all they lack is opportunity, a chance to put their warped views into action.

In fact, still creepy how close Palin got to the presidency. All that was required was a dominant positivist party so desperate to show it was redeemable in the eyes of the public that it would nominate a man as self-integral as he was blind to the integrity of those with whom he disagreed. The perfect setting for a catastrophic lapse of judgment on both his part and the part of the party, which got Palin scarily close to the superego chair.

[rat1]

Antisocial behavior, not all of it being criminal, is a very common occurrence. Most people exhibit some form of antisocial behavior. The behavior doesn't have to be extreme for it to be harmful.

[tcaudilllg]

Antisocial behavior, not all of it being criminal, is a very common occurrence. Most people exhibit some form of antisocial behavior. The behavior doesn't have to be extreme for it to be harmful.

I disagree with this. The prevalence of APD is known to be in the single digits.

I love how in my Abnormal Psych text the author specifically needles APD persons' characteristic feelings of "cleverness" in his accounting of the disorder, as though he believes they just might be among his readership.

[Valori]

This thread is lol. I'm beginning to have second thoughts about these forums. -.-

[rat1]

I disagree with this. The prevalence of APD is known to be in the single digits.

I love how in my Abnormal Psych text the author specifically needles APD persons' characteristic feelings of "cleverness" in his accounting of the disorder, as though he believes they just might be among his readership.

Thats because the behavior has to reach a certain level of severity and prevalence before it becomes a disorder.

[tcaudilllg]

Actually there is a VI component to APD. I know because I've had enough experience with APD people to make the call. You can tell a person is unusually disposed to selfish behavior just by looking at them... if you know what to look for.

[Valori]

Actually there is a VI component to APD. I know because I've had enough experience with APD people to make the call. You can tell a person is unusually disposed to selfish behavior just by looking at them... if you know what to look for.

[Pookie]

I dont understand where you pull Alpha - Fe from. That would be nice for you to clarify exactly why it must be Alpha - Fe.

I feel the litmus test to determine good and evil is taught to us by our parents behavior. If we dont like what they do, their actions shape us in a direction that ends up with our opinions being formed one way. If we feel safe and comfortable with their actions, i believe we re-affirm their principles, or at the least try to get to the same result through our own principles.

My mom has super strong Fi, and i think that had a HUGE impact on my individual notion of right and wrong. Even if i disagree with her on what, specifically, is right or wrong - the criteria to be considered is in big part to what i was raised around by my parent even more-so than my society.

[Pookie]

Oh and as to the Nurture v. Nature discussion going on -

The two are so intertwined that you can't tell where one starts and another begins. Did ****** become ****** because of the conditions of his life, or did he become ****** because of who he was as a person. We can't tell. All we know is that - He was a person and he had conditions in his life, and by the end of it he was who he became.

Nurture and Nature is a constant dynamic, i don't think you can separate the two without completely missing the point.

[tcaudilllg]

Nature determines the attitude relative to others' attitudes towards the same thing. That's all that matters.

[tcaudilllg]

Nope. I'm not sure I've ever discussed it here, but one of the planks of the supersocion theory is the VI correspondence to specific traits. You can tell so much by way of the face. Each trait has with it a corresponding visual identification component. Even your values are reflected in your physical appearance.

Not so crazy as it sounds. In fact, by my calcuation ISFPs, by in large, would swear by it.

[Valori]

Nope. I'm not sure I've ever discussed it here, but one of the planks of the supersocion theory is the VI correspondence to specific traits. You can tell so much by way of the face. Each trait has with it a corresponding visual identification component. Even your values are reflected in your physical appearance.

Not so crazy as it sounds. In fact, by my calcuation ISFPs, by in large, would swear by it.

Without intending offense, I'd much prefer it if you'd post what evidence you have come upon instead. I'm not saying it's necessarily impossible, but what you are saying tends to remind me of phrenology. Anyway, I can tell by some of the pixels, etc.

[tcaudilllg]

Without intending offense, I'd much prefer it if you'd post what evidence you have come upon instead. I'm not saying it's necessarily impossible, but what you are saying tends to remind me of phrenology. Anyway, I can tell by some of the pixels, etc.

Well visual identification in general reminds of phrenology. In short, you can't have the brain without the body.

"Physiognomy" is the correct term.

That comment on ISFPs is based on the dual-type functional relationship of ethics functions (Fi, Fe) to Si. If Si is qualia, presentation, then one expression of the relationship between Si and ethical functions should be "ethic implies appearance." Now the existence of the reverse postulate ("appearance implies ethic") is a common prejudice enough, but taken to refer to static, physical traits of appearance, it proves oddly correct, almost as if the relationships between the elements themselves dictate truth.

[Valori]

Yes, physiognomy is the term I was thinking of. Nonetheless, lol.

[tcaudilllg]

I'm just putting it out there. I would fear for the health, possibly, of any person who explained how to identify sociopaths by physiognomic traits.

Just know that such information can be compiled, although it behooves the individual to compile it on their own. Anime is a good resource. Especially hentai -- you'll find lots of less than attractive people in hentai movies, with dispositions to match.

[Valori]

Uh huh.

[Korpsy Knievel]

Valori is quickly becoming my favorite member.

[Simon Ssmall]

Evil is bullshit