Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Good and Evil

  1. #1
    In Transition Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    3,704
    Mentioned
    92 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default Good and Evil

    It's obvious that all types are capable of being good or evil and what type you are will not lead you to be more evil or more good. However, what it will lead to is how your good intentions will be expressed and your bad intentions will be expressed to others. For example you can take an IEE and LSI, and they can both be equally good, but they'll express it in completely opposite ways. The same applies if they were both equally evil. Also, how good or evil a person is will determine how much they express positive or negative attributes of their personality. I'm just trying to figure out what types of good or evil, how would it manifest in each type? Maybe you guys could help me out here as it's difficult to figure out each type.

    Here is my take, they're just wild guesses and could be totally off, the point of this thread is for you to make your own or give some of your own insight on the topic.


    Examples:


    SEE

    Good - Generous
    Evil - Bully


    LIE

    Good - Giving Advice
    Evil - Greedy


    ESE

    Good - Sacrificing own needs for others
    Evil - Argumentative


    IEE

    Good - Motivating Others
    Evil - Stubborn


    SLI

    Good - Practically helpful
    Evil - Rude


    SLE

    Good - Gregarious
    Evil - Bully


    IEI

    Good - Courteous
    Evil - Indirectness


    ILI

    Good - Laid Back
    Evil - Rude


    LII

    Good - Courteous
    Evil - Passive Aggressive


    LSE

    Good - Self-Sacrifice
    Evil - Sabotaging others


    LSI

    Good - Helping directly
    Evil - Lack of empathy


    ESI

    Good - Putting others needs first
    Evil - Punishing others


    ILE

    Good - Friendly
    Evil - Manipulative


    EII

    Good - Helping those in need
    Evil - Passive Aggressive


    SEI

    Good - Peacemaker
    Evil - Selfish


    EIE

    Good - Assisting Others
    Evil - Manipulative
    Last edited by Raver; 08-19-2011 at 05:18 AM.
    "Nothing happens until the pain of staying the same outweighs the pain of change."

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-4w5-9w1

  2. #2
    when you see the booty Galen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    everywhere at once
    Posts
    8,450
    Mentioned
    204 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You're right, it is obvious.
    "And above all, watch with glittering eyes the whole world around you because the greatest secrets are always hidden in the most unlikely places. Those who don't believe in magic will never find it." -Roald Dahl

    http://forum.socionix.com/
    It's pretty cool

  3. #3
    In Transition Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    3,704
    Mentioned
    92 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Galen View Post
    You're right, it is obvious.
    It's obvious that any type can be evil or good. It's also obvious that any type can evil or good in their own way. What isn't obvious is how they can be evil or good in their own way.
    "Nothing happens until the pain of staying the same outweighs the pain of change."

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-4w5-9w1

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    0
    Mentioned
    Post(s)
    Tagged
    Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Traveler View Post
    Good and evil
    Moral relativity.

  5. #5
    In Transition Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    3,704
    Mentioned
    92 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nil View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Traveler View Post
    Good and evil
    Moral relativity.
    Yes morality is relative, however I think it's fair to judge actions as good or evil based on whether they benefit other people or hurt them.
    "Nothing happens until the pain of staying the same outweighs the pain of change."

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-4w5-9w1

  6. #6
    Punk
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    TIM
    ESE
    Posts
    1,659
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    i hate morality. it always sounds so self-serving to me.


  7. #7
    Le roi internet Bluenoir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Zeta Reticuli
    TIM
    Ne-LII
    Posts
    392
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by givemeaname View Post
    i hate morality. it always sounds so self-serving to me.

    Which is itself a statement of your moral code. If you hate morality you would not care if it's self serving. You can't say you hate ethics, than judge people for self serving morality, that's just as arbitary and self serving no?
    The mode of goodness conditions one to happiness, passion conditions him to the fruits of action, and ignorance to madness.

    Chapter 14, Verse 9.
    The Bhagavad Gita

  8. #8
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,337
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Here are some of the terms you used that fit me. I'm EII:

    Good - Laid Back
    Good - Friendly
    Good - Helping those in need
    Good - Peacemaker

    Evil - Indirectness
    Evil - Selfish
    Evil - Rude
    Evil - Stubborn
    Evil - Lack of empathy
    Evil - Greedy

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    0
    Mentioned
    Post(s)
    Tagged
    Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Traveler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by nil View Post

    Moral relativity.
    Yes morality is relative, however I think it's fair to judge actions as good or evil based on whether they benefit other people or hurt them.
    Even still, there remain complications in the sphere of ethics that are unaccounted for by such a simplistic view of "good" vs. "evil." Most people would say that to kill one man is better than to kill ten, even though most would concede that neither option is "good" or desirable. They fail to, however, consider other factors related to the situation. "Doing the greatest good" is a difficult way to go about things because "greatest good" and even "good" to begin with are based within a person's subjective schema. Utilitarianism, as with any other philosophy of ethics which tries to concretely define the terms "good" and "evil", has its holes, because reality is not compatible with such dichotomies. Each action can be perceived by one subject or in one part "good," by one subject or in one part "evil," but wholly in reality it can be seen as simply an action that is neither necessitated by a moral obligation nor upheld as a moral responsibility.

    Your attempts to polarize nonexistent concepts in nonexistent archetypes may yield fruit, but such will never be possible in wholly realistic humans.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    TIM
    INFj sub (Fi+Ne)/2
    Posts
    449
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    this type of good and bad is very relative, imo personnal good and bad change over life, when acquiring new experience / knowledge. This process of evolving is perhaps more interressant than having a clear set of moral value from 0 to 90 yo.

    Good - Laid Back
    Good - Friendly
    Good - Helping those in need
    Good - Peacemaker

    Evil - Indirectness
    Evil - Selfish
    Evil - Rude
    Evil - Stubborn
    Evil - Lack of empathy
    Evil - Greedy
    I agree, but imo especially as INFj, we have tendency to repress some side of us as moraly bad, resulting of somewhat of a self destructivism. Sometime I lack empaty ; sometime im selfish, and indirect. It suck, but its a part of me that I prefer to learn to use properly than never stopping to say "its bad" to me and repress me.
    Dont hesitate to explore your greedy side, before repress all your action labelled as greedy.



    or hurt them.
    Even still, there remain complications in the sphere of ethics that are unaccounted for by such a simplistic view of "good" vs. "evil." Most people would say that to kill one man is better than to kill ten, even though most would concede that neither option is "good" or desirable. They fail to, however, consider other factors related to the situation. "Doing the greatest good" is a difficult way to go about things because "greatest good" and even "good" to begin with are based within a person's subjective schema. Utilitarianism, as with any other philosophy of ethics which tries to concretely define the terms "good" and "evil", has its holes, because reality is not compatible with such dichotomies. Each action can be perceived by one subject or in one part "good," by one subject or in one part "evil," but wholly in reality it can be seen as simply an action that is neither necessitated by a moral obligation nor upheld as a moral responsibility.

    Your attempts to polarize nonexistent concepts in nonexistent archetypes may yield fruit, but such will never be possible in wholly realistic humans.
    this. This is the type of relativisation I get when I enter into a great brain fuck thinking mode.
    But there is another simple fact that moral, even if relative, is close to be universal into human activity, so interressant to analyze and speak about. Its not just because its "based on emotion, not objective" that its not currently usefull and meaningfull.

    Reality isnt compatible to this dichotomie : absolutely, but reality isnt just what you have front of eyes, some event to analyze or just scientific reality. Its "social cohesion" too, history of different civilization, interaction with religion/civilization where moral and good & bad are present everywhere.
    Last edited by noid; 08-19-2011 at 10:59 AM.
    "The final delusion is the belief that one has lost all delusion."

    -- Maurice Chapelain

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Morality is relative, but a genetically majoritarian positions nonetheless exist.

    As a general rule, the most logical path to bettering existence is the best. Recognizing the importance of establishing and meeting obligations is also essential for this end. You'll find that generally the majority respects ethical perspectives that integrate these two approaches. The "kingdom of ends", as Kant called it.

    First off, I want to impress that absolute evil = psychopathy, not sociopathy. Generally sociopaths are merely self-obsessed and indifferent to who they hurt... they will only hurt others to render a service to themselves or those they like better. Psychopaths are different: they actually take pleasure in ruining a thing. They have "positively nihilist" natures: they desires positive existences for themselves, so that they can ultimately ruin themselves when there is nothing left to destroy. This is why they (generally) don't just off themselves.
    Last edited by tcaudilllg; 08-19-2011 at 11:33 AM.

  12. #12
    The Iniquitous inumbra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    954
    Posts
    5,989
    Mentioned
    70 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't see sacrificing one's needs for others or putting others first as "good." If the enneagram 2 is anything to go by... these kinds of things are often done for selfish purposes.

  13. #13
    In Transition Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    3,704
    Mentioned
    92 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nil View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Traveler View Post

    Yes morality is relative, however I think it's fair to judge actions as good or evil based on whether they benefit other people or hurt them.
    Even still, there remain complications in the sphere of ethics that are unaccounted for by such a simplistic view of "good" vs. "evil." Most people would say that to kill one man is better than to kill ten, even though most would concede that neither option is "good" or desirable. They fail to, however, consider other factors related to the situation. "Doing the greatest good" is a difficult way to go about things because "greatest good" and even "good" to begin with are based within a person's subjective schema. Utilitarianism, as with any other philosophy of ethics which tries to concretely define the terms "good" and "evil", has its holes, because reality is not compatible with such dichotomies. Each action can be perceived by one subject or in one part "good," by one subject or in one part "evil," but wholly in reality it can be seen as simply an action that is neither necessitated by a moral obligation nor upheld as a moral responsibility.

    Your attempts to polarize nonexistent concepts in nonexistent archetypes may yield fruit, but such will never be possible in wholly realistic humans.
    I see the point you're trying to make. It's that a lot of things in life are not clearly good or evil and can be muddled into into a grey area, thus creating a dichotomy that is not possible. For instance some people are very charismatic and may make another individual happy, however their true intentions can be for bad, and some people are very subdued and may not be able to make another happy, however their true intentions can be for good. The main thing to distinguish these two people is that the latter would have more of a long term benefit and the former would be more of a short term benefit.

    However, even though this may make it difficult to objectively deduce good and evil in reality, it is still possible to subjectively deduce good and evil. If you assign behaviors, which yield a long-term positive reaction and effect inside a fellow person as opposed to a long-term negative reaction and effect inside another person, you can distinguish good and evil within that basic logical frame even if it is only subjective and relative. The important underlying factor is if that individual is being kind to another person not for their own benefit, but simply for the other person's benefit.
    "Nothing happens until the pain of staying the same outweighs the pain of change."

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-4w5-9w1

  14. #14
    Hiding Typhon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Valhalla
    TIM
    Ni-ENFj
    Posts
    2,645
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Traveller: I would switch evil for SEE to "manipulative" and evil of EIE to "megalomaniac".

  15. #15
    UDP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East Coast West Coast Dirty South
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    14,826
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    OP list appears to be organized by a Ti polr type....

  16. #16
    moredhel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia
    TIM
    LSE (-Si)/9w1/ENTJ
    Posts
    196
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Hmm doesn't seem overly helpful...a lot of that behavior could apply to most if not all of those types, I know you're going for very general but still.
    Maybe positive and negative behavior by function and position would make more sense.

    As for debating morality...just don't use the words good and evil then nobody feels the need to have a pointless philosophical discussion.

  17. #17
    Fuck-up NewBorn STAR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    TIM
    me>> Augusta whore
    Posts
    998
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Dont let the infps indirectedness sway me from the core essentials ever ;((

  18. #18
    24601 ClownsandEntropy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    TIM
    LII, 5w6
    Posts
    670
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It seems that, while the type descriptions do seem to suggest that certain "evil" people will act in certain ways according to their type, it is perfectly possible for types to act differently - for an LSI to be stubborn, or an IEE to be devoid of empathy, if they so wished to be. I think that if they're trying to be evil for a reason, they can employ whatever unhelpful behaviour they want. If they are "naturally" evil, I have a feeling that type will not necessarily affect how they act, that the "evil" part of them will, still, allow them to be as unhelpful by whatever means they want. I just fear that if we do accept this, the types can get too much caricatured, and I don't think that "evil" types necessarily act in any one way.
    Warm Regards,



    Clowns & Entropy

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •