Strong moral compass and sense of justice: are some types more prone to it?

[LauriesCrusador]

This is one of those questions I hate but I must ask this: are some types more prone to it - and if so which ones and why do you think this is - or is it just something we learn or develop over the years or don't?

Also, do you view a strong moral compass and sense of justice a good thing? Why, or why not.

And do individuals with a strong moral compass and sense of justice view it as a good thing or rather disturbing or whatever.

FIRE AWAY!

[Gilly]

Rational types if anything

[Enterprising Tim]

[WVBRY]

Rational types if anything

This.

[Creepy-Snaps]

Define moral compass and sense of justice. I find certain ethical types are prone to having a highly valued moral compass, while certain logical types are prone to having a highly valued sense of justice.

[Galen]

Rational types if anything

This. At the very least I see rationals/rational subtypes imposing their own morality/sense of justice/thoughts/whatever on other people more. Same goes for sx first types too.

[Gilly]

Sx first? Really? IMO its much more so/sx types...I do think sx primaries tend to hold more strongly to/are less easily disavowed of their beliefs, but are more likely to judge silently or wait to be engaged, whereas so/sx are more likely to offer their views without being asked. Sx has more spiritual inertia; so has more spiritual expansiveness.

[Gilly]

I guess I would agree that sx are more judgemental in terms of who they associate with or let into their circle, especially sx/sp, but I think they are not so likely to be preachy. Sx/so can be preachy for sure but you usually have to personally offend or provoke them in some way. To me he tenor of the op was more suggestive of a "right/wrong thing to do" mentality, which IME is more so-related.

[woofwoofl]

Just hearing the word "justice" makes me pissed and uneasy it's a damn waste to keep such detailed score of what went on in such a crazy way, and then retaliate in ways that don't correct the wrong at all... ugh...

[Creepy-male]

I find the concept of a strong moral compass difficult to grasp... are we referring to strong based on one's own criteria or the criteria of a critic. This should be relatively obvious that not everyone shares the same opinion on what constitutes strong morals.

Further some will even claim that morals in themselves don't exist as an absolute thing -- they are just an idea invented by people.

So we have
Moral Absolutist - Moral Relativist
I consider my morality strong - I do not consider my morality strong
___ group considers my morality strong - ____ groups considers my morality weak

Consider all the possibilities now

[Gilly]

Just hearing the word "justice" makes me pissed and uneasy it's a damn waste to keep such detailed score of what went on in such a crazy way, and then retaliate in ways that don't correct the wrong at all... ugh...

The bottom line is, justice is always personal, and when you mask it in the guise of some supernatural priority, it both loses all meaning and becomes completely disingenuous.

[Gilly]

Further some will even claim that morals in themselves don't exist as an absolute thing -- they are just an idea invented by people.

I mean I think it invariably carries socially relevant connotations, "doing the right thing" usually involves either sacrificing yourself or performing some obvious evil and justifying it with a desired outcome. The other form it commonly takes is people finding things that reflect a consistent enforcement of values, which I would assume are backed up by some concept of self-conditioning. I don't know, mostly it boils down to people being stubborn and self-interested, and wanting an excuse for it.

[Beautiful sky]

It can be somewhat engrained; who's standard of moral and justice; cuban freedom fighter is different from Ayn Rand style objectivist working at wall street; concepts of moral justice evolve over time; you don't see anyone being hung for being a horse thief any more. So a sense of moral compass and sense of justice is evolved with society and culture; extraverts adapt these cultures depending on what they view and their culture/society instills in them. Take an LSE of now, next to me, they draw lines because of the lack of empathy this allows them to judge the person who did something which they see and coin as “horrible”; an example of this is kids getting raped. An LSE would see this as an injustice if he/she is of the culture which says it's wrong.

[Creepy-male]

I mean I think it invariably carries socially relevant connotations, "doing the right thing" usually involves either sacrificing yourself or performing some obvious evil and justifying it with a desired outcome. The other form it commonly takes is people finding things that reflect a consistent enforcement of values, which I would assume are backed up by some concept of self-conditioning. I don't know, mostly it boils down to people being stubborn and self-interested, and wanting an excuse for it.

I'm thinking there is a relationship between the absolute and relative moralities. Their is an absolute truth, but people aren't aware of it, they are aware of a personal truth.

Social justice follows; the absolute criteria for right and wrong evolve out of the total interactions of different personal code of ethics, however seeing as how understanding this absolute right and wrong falls under the category of absolute truth, then people aren't aware of this. So functionally it all comes down to one's personal code of ethics, but this does not delegitimize the source of their ethics, the source is one's personal perception of an absolute. A river gets its water from the ocean, but it is not the ocean... likewise a person's subjective frame of reference is part of an absolute but it is not that absolute.

[DividedsGhost]

Just hearing the word "justice" makes me pissed and uneasy it's a damn waste to keep such detailed score of what went on in such a crazy way, and then retaliate in ways that don't correct the wrong at all... ugh...

Yeah, this doesn't seem like Fi valuing to me. Sounds like Fe.

This is my morality:

Are they incapable of prejudice?

Persons with Asperger Syndrome often tend to be naive, to assume their own ethical level in others, which makes them sitting ducks. Ancient tribal instincts from the mammalian brain like prejudice and xenophobia toward those outside the own tribe are impaired in some Aspergoid persons, possibly because they are located in the same regions of the brain where the also impaired aspects of nonverbal communication are housed. Lacking the social heuristics of prejudice and xenophobia, they may not recognize evildoers in time and end up in wrong company and being taken advantage of.

Are they lacking in reciprocity?

Civilized societies are based on the principle of reciprocity; of returning favours, often mistaken for altruism. People give with the expectation to receive something in return, and when given something, they feel obliged to return the favour. One gives to oblige. Without this principle, societies beyond the size of a tribe could not exist.


In some with Asperger Syndrome, this mechanism is clearly absent. When given something, they feel no obligation. When they give on the other hand, they give freely, without expecting anything in return. They do not give to oblige, but are truly altruistic. This applies not only to material giving, but also to communication, and is related to the long intervals in contact with others, the discontinuity, the apparent silence or having forgotten about the other.

EDIT: Why did hkkmr mark your post with a warning? wtf...what an asshole.

[mu4]

EDIT: Why did hkkmr mark your post with a warning? wtf...what an asshole.

Was a accident, misclick, removing it now. Probably clicked it accidently on the touchscreen while scrolling.

[Park]

are some types more prone to it

I don't know. But the ones that are, are less prone to cheap rhetoric. Gilly would be a good counter-example I think.

Also, do you view a strong moral compass and sense of justice a good thing? Why, or why not.

In general, yes. Because without it we're one step closer to un-evolved species, like animals.

And do individuals with a strong moral compass and sense of justice view it as a good thing or rather disturbing or whatever.

I feel both ways. It has both it's good and bad sides, and it can definitely be disturbing.

[Gilly]

I don't know. But the ones that are, are less prone to cheap rhetoric. Gilly would be a good counter-example I think.

Cheap rhetoric, like thinly veiled personal attacks.

Bitch.

[Gilly]

Seriously, thank you for proving my point.

[Park]

Hehe.

[Jenna]

ESI most likely. Though it's an unhealthy and kind of extreme example, think of Angela from The Office. I'd say.. Moral compass = the Fi, and sense of justice = creative Se. Most EIIs have a strong moral compass but they don't quite fit the "justice" half, because they are so forgiving. Compare that to LSI, who have a strong sense of justice but not the moral compass. Instead, they care most about being objectively logical, which tends to offend Fi types. However in this sense LSIs could be more ethical than ESI, because Fi types often come to ethical conclusions that are only based on their interpretation of what is or isn't right. But who is to say these interpretations are true? LSIs break things down in a way that Fi types probably interpret to be cold and perhaps too focused on what is "correct" rather than what is "ethical", not sure on this though because I value Ti so I'm just taking a shot in the dark. Ti types think Fi types can be judgmental and harsh. This is Fi Te vs Ti Fe and somewhat off topic because I'm kind of rambling, but what I'm getting at is that while I do think ESI is the type that best fits your question, I don't actually believe them to be the most ethical, because many are too closed minded.

I feel like I went way off topic lol, sorry

[Beautiful sky]

I have a very strong moral compass because I hold myself to a high standard and treat people with respect, kindness, (unless I'm socionically testing them), and try to be helpful/considerate, etc.

[Creepy-]

This is one of those questions I hate but I must ask this: are some types more prone to it - and if so which ones and why do you think this is - or is it just something we learn or develop over the years or don't?

Also, do you view a strong moral compass and sense of justice a good thing? Why, or why not.

And do individuals with a strong moral compass and sense of justice view it as a good thing or rather disturbing or whatever.

I tend to view people who adhere to a strong sense of morality or have grandiose views on justice and their role in maintaining it as more than a little arrogant, and perhaps even dangerous. Dangerous because they cannot be reasoned with in the event that something they find to be morally distasteful "should" or "must" be done. There is also the distinct possibility that an individual has done nothing more than delude himself that he is a bastion of righteousness in a damned and forsaken world, which could easily contribute to any number of negative consequences. Also, it is just unrealistic.

Of course, there are those who genuinely want to do nothing but help a dying planet, and they are alright in my book. But these types of people, I don't think would ever label themselves as being extremely moral or having a sense of justice. That just reeks of feigning goodness and bolstering ego.

As to possible type correlations, I could certainly see rational types and perhaps ethical types being more predisposed.

[WVBRY]

Just hearing the word "justice" makes me pissed and uneasy it's a damn waste to keep such detailed score of what went on in such a crazy way, and then retaliate in ways that don't correct the wrong at all... ugh...

Ti polr.

[WVBRY]

I tend to view people who adhere to a strong sense of morality or have grandiose views on justice and their role in maintaining it as more than a little arrogant, and perhaps even dangerous.

I tend to view people who have no sense of justice and the balance factor in relationships as being a little dangerous. I dont want to associate with them. Not Fidel Castro Stalin dangerous, but dangerous in the sense they can be seriously damaging to people who do have a more natural feel for justice and the balance factor in raltions.

[Gilly]

Typhon I'm with you on the relationships bit. People who don't respect the necessary balance of energies, favors, and emotions in a relationship are fruitless to be around because without that balance, a relationship stops being ingenuously cooperative and degenerates into selfish competition.


However to me that's different from what people usually call "justice." I think a sense of fairness is the only true morality, but in my ears "justice" usually contains an implicit appeal to higher authority and other such nonsense.

[LauriesCrusador]

Okee dokee. Horrible terms, I know. lol


Moral compass, a person's ability to judge or a person's conscience that tells him what's right and wrong and act accordingly. Something like that, I'd think.


Sense of justice, knowing what must be rightfully done and - no matter the cost - doing it. A strong desire to hold persons accountable for their actions no matter who they are. A person's (unquenchable?) desire for everyone to be treated fairly and equally, the quality of being just, impartial, fair, non-discriminatory, unprejudiced and unbiased. Siding with the underdog. Something like that I'd say. Prolly being a strong believer in following rules, law-abiding. Dunno.

Def of justice = just ice ... ice melts ... so what is left is just .......................... NOTHING

[LauriesCrusador]

How is siding with the underdog the same as being impartial/unbiased/non-discriminatory?

It isn't. there's a dot between the sentences for a good reason.

Also if you have an unquenchable desire to hold people accountable for their actions, it's likely that you've figured out that following rules and being law-abiding often doesn't lead to a fair outcome.

Sure! But does that exclude that someone still wants or expects both?

[WVBRY]

It isn't. there's a dot between the sentences for good reason.

I think what she meant was that siding with the underdog, just because they are the underdog, is just as unjust as turning against them because they are the underdog.

Stop being so dense.

[Slacker]

My brain translates "sense of justice" as "compulsion to punish." I am not punitive at all.

I think I have a strong moral compass, and I think many people who think they do but whose moral compass comes from some outside code or group lack an actual compass. If your morals come from outside of you, it's more like a road map than a compass, and your morals are then dependant upon the writer of the map.

[LauriesCrusador]

Yeah sorry my wording wasn't the best, what he said.

Not siding with the underdog just because they are.... ; but because of the injustice that occurs first and which then results in imposing the underdog role on individuals, I'd suppose.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I already know everything about morals and ethics, I'm a really empathetic dude.

The thing is the only people that like to hear that shit are homoerotic beta st males that are in prison, and since they actually need my moralistic gay rant speeches, it actually effects them. (Like doesn't it feel really good to eat when you're actually hungry rather than eating because you don't have anything else to do?) In this forum, I feel more like I'm preaching to the choir, and I guess I want somebody to present something to me in an interesting, logical way that is emotionally neutral (neither cutting nor overly huggy).

I do the hugging thing so well myself. And so do my closest friends.

I don't like people being mean because rudeness is the exact conflictory opposite of people hugging.

But being logical in a way that I can accept without feeling people are being condescending or disregarding me is very complementary to my own nature.

Telling me how to be a good person is like telling a fish how to swim.

I'm not trying to act like I'm better than anybody else but come on. As I like to say, evil is fought within, and since I'm so introverted, I know I'm a good person. You gotta take those cliched, over-used sayings and see how they work well with your own identity sphere. As my jewish friend said once, there's more to life than being good or bad. It struck a chord with me.

HAHA THIS IS SORTA MAKING ME SOUND LIKE I'M INFJ WITH A TE DUAL SEEKING FUNCTION. COME HERE ASHTON BABY. I FORGIVE YOU. AND IM SORRY TOO.

[mu4]

My brain translates "sense of justice" as "compulsion to punish." I am not punitive at all.

I think I have a strong moral compass, and I think many people who think they do but whose moral compass comes from some outside code or group lack an actual compass. If your morals come from outside of you, it's more like a road map than a compass, and your morals are then dependant upon the writer of the map.

This is actually not right, the reason why justice is important and external justice is important is because personal punishment is often irreversible, retributive and leads to further reprisals.

I actually committed a error in this threat that is a example of why justice is important, because I accidentally warned woofwoofl and I was able to reverse it. However if I had punished woofwoofl personally because I erroneously thought he did something wrong, this sort of interaction and the antipathy it would bring is not so easily resolved.

But let's say something else happened, let's say that something one took a personal retributive act against a innocent person. How does that harm get resolved, now both people have been wronged and at a personal level. Should there be further retributive actions and against whom?

We created systems of justice in order to overcome these sort of personal retributive actions, and to create a arbitration system to deliberate punishment rather then allow personal agents of retribution. It leads to a distaste by most people of the justice system and etc, but this is actually what it's here for, as a sort of agent to soak up people's personal retributive tendencies without being destroyed.

Justice is not about personal morality, it's about preventing retributive acts which leads to further retributive acts in a chain of vengeance, it's about preventing harm and punishing those that harm, and harm is something concrete and not personal. It's not like people with a high sense of morality don't engage in punishment, vengeance and retribution and many personal moral systems are degenerate, traditional and promotes brutality.

A lot of crimes and harmful actions happens without witnesses or anyone to intercede immediately, how does one figure out who did it and what to do about it. What it everyone formed their own idea of who did it and all took individual retributive action, against multiple agents with most of them being innocent?

[Cuddly McFluffles]

Not siding with the underdog just because they are.... ; but because of the injustice that occurs first and which then results in imposing the underdog role on individuals, I'd suppose.

"Siding with what/whom you consider to be right, regardless of the power, backing, or prestige the opposition holds." <-- That what you're going for?

[IEI]

This is one of those questions I hate but I must ask this: are some types more prone to it - and if so which ones and why do you think this is - or is it just something we learn or develop over the years or don't?

Also, do you view a strong moral compass and sense of justice a good thing? Why, or why not.

And do individuals with a strong moral compass and sense of justice view it as a good thing or rather disturbing or whatever.

FIRE AWAY!

I know a few people who project a strong moral compass and sense of justice. I have observed that if this is extreme in a person it can lead to the judgement of others and a person can end up trapped in a hell of their own making because they always have to do the right thing to live up to their own internal standards. They can also live in denial a lot as no matter how hard people try they can't always do the right thing and someone will always be critical of their actions and see a negative consequence. Living in self denial and unable to deal with the reality of their true intentions or behaviour. Depends where they fall on the spectrum really.

[tcaudilllg]

I just an epiphany about EM types, so I have something now to say on this matter. Justice is always in reference to a past injury, and is leveled to assauge the negative feelings created by the injury. The past, we remember, is in substance Ni. Feeling is Fe. Justice is measured in pain proportional to the injury. That's Si (alpha Si in particular). Between alpha Si and beta Fe there is alpha Fe, which is ethic. To ascertain what is truly just, you need a gestalt sense of a person's internal situation. Is it not more satisfying to punish a powerful person who killed someone just because they could, than to punish someone who kills that same person out of revenge? Of all the types, ESE is most fit to determine what is truly just in a situation. Alpha in general is a very conscientious quadra. Gamma is not.

However what of the skill of justice? What of the meting out of it? ESEs may indeed be rather hesitant to inflict pain on another when given the opportunity, because what if they are missing some of the details? Ni is quite the bedeviler in that regard. The vigorous pursuit of justice requires persons who have untroubled consciences: people who right wrongs for the sheer satisfaction of living the belief that they are the servants of justice. The quest to create a world without injustice... to punish evil wherever it rears its ugly head... the ability to make some sense of the pain of past injury and loss, to give it meaning and to express its significance. Of course, this is a common tale in comic literature at least... the masked vigilante who goes out into the night and fights evil under the pretense of stopping crime. But the esteem of being a hero is small compensation for the pain of the past that society permitted its villains to inflict. But why would they be so grievously injured? Therein lies a clue to the failings of the hero, be they vain, or simply oblivious to the suffering of those around them.

[Aquagraph]

Justice is a good word for sounding absolute about something relative. Works for people who think their values are the will of the world, good and all that is holy and pure.

I talk about means and results of the latter. And in the case of morality, the ultimately significant results are the ones that cause/prohibit pleasure/suffering.

[717495]

This probably ntr. I know irrationals irrational-subtype do this more than I. Alpha beta gamma delta.