Morality and Type

[Taknamay]

I'm just curious to see if a connection can be made between type and morality.

Let's look at some moral dichotomies we can make:

Moralist (there are morals) vs. Nihilist (there are no morals)

Cognitivist (morality can be proven) vs. Non-cognitivist (morality cannot be proven)

Divine Command Theorist (morality is based on authority) vs. Moral Realist (morality is based on arguments)

Utilitarian (results are what matter) vs. Deontological (actions are what matter)

Objectivist (morality can be understood from outside the person) vs. Subjectivist (morality cannot be understood from outside the person)

Universalist (ethical statements are always true) vs. Relativist (ethical statements are not always true)

Retributive (wrongdoers should suffer for their actions) vs. Restorative (wrongdoers should be taught to do the right thing)


Feel free to suggest another one. It can be argued that any of these are not a dichotomy but a sliding scale, but it may be easier to think of them as dichotomies. And there is certainly overlap.

[Beautiful sky]

What do you mean by "morality"? If you mean being judgmental about one's religion, about what and how people should act and be, then no, there's no correlation.

[Taknamay]

What do you mean by "morality"? If you mean being judgmental about one's religion, about what and how people should act and be, then no, there's no correlation.

...what? I'm sorry I don't understand what you are asking exactly. I'm not judging anyone... if that's what you're implying... and I'm not completely sure if you were trying to imply that. Sorry if I came off judgemental... or if I'm assuming you're saying I am being judgmental... or something...

My question is just asking where different types of people get their moral values, or if it is type related at all whatsoever. Morality is the topic of "right and wrong" or am I misinformed?

And of course the definition of "right and wrong" varies from person to person. That's the reason I ask, really.

...I'm scared of you at the moment Maritsa o.o

From Wikipedia:

Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation among intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and bad (or wrong). A moral code is a system of morality (for example, according to a particular philosophy, religion, culture, etc.) and a moral is any one practice or teaching within a moral code. The adjective moral is synonymous with "good" or "right." Immorality is the active opposition to morality (i.e. good or right), while amorality is variously defined as an unawareness of, indifference toward, or disbelief in any set of moral standards or principles.

[Beautiful sky]

I don't know where I get my morality from; it's inherent. I started judging right and wrong actions/behaviors from early on.

[MisterNi]

While I'm not exactly a moralist, I despise nihilism and would consider myself to be an anti-nihilist cognitivist. While not related to morality, my views on justice are retributive for acts of malice and restoritive for acts of ignorance... assuming the ignorant party does not wish to remain woefully ignorant of course.

[Taknamay]

Hmm. Maybe I should take a crack at this to describe my question. Personally, I would answer this:

Moralist: I believe morality exists.
Non-cognitivist: I do not believe ethical statements can be proven true.
Divine Command: I believe that morality comes from an authority.
Deontological: I think actions are what matter, as opposed to results.
Subjectivist: I do not think it is possible for everybody to understand morality the same way.
Relativist: I think that moral statements are not always true, it depends on the situation.
Restorative: This is simply for the reason that I think people should do the right thing for the sake of doing the right thing; not for fear of punishment. Retributive justice is a compromise in my opinion. But that's not something I expect people to understand, and I see justice in terms of a social contract. We trade our freedoms in exchange for safety. But that's back to subjectivism, I suppose.

Approximately. Like I said, it's probably a sliding scale. Maybe as a poll this would be better, but I'm not sure how it would be phrased.

While I'm not exactly a moralist, I despise nihilism and would consider myself to be an anti-nihilist cognitivist. While not related to morality, my views on justice are retributive for acts of malice and restoritive for acts of ignorance... assuming the ignorant party does not wish to remain woefully ignorant.

Right, this was the kind of thing I was looking for. I wrote my post before reading yours.

[Creepy-male]

Moralist (there are morals) vs. Nihilist (there are no morals)
Moralist -- there are morals but they are subjective

Cognitivist (morality can be proven) vs. Non-cognitivist (morality cannot be proven)
Non-cognitivist -- I believe it's subjective and not something you "prove"

Divine Command (morality is based on authority) vs. Moral Realist (morality is based on arguments)
Moral Realist -- I do not believe morality is based on authority, but subjective preference, although it can have a basis outside an argument

Utilitarian (results are what matter) vs. Deontological (actions are what matter)
No Preference -- Since I think its subjective it may be a mixture of both for many people

Objectivist (morality can be understood from outside the person) vs. Subjectivist (morality cannot be understood from outside the person)
Subjectivist -- An objective exists outside oneself, but this objective is perceived from your own subjective vantage point

Universalist (ethical statements are always true) vs. Relativist (ethical statements are not always true)
Universalist -- People's beliefs should be consistent, finding exceptions to rules should lead people in the direction of increased understanding rather than increasing inconsistency

Retributive (wrongdoers should suffer for their actions) vs. Restorative (wrongdoers should be taught to do the right thing)
Mixture -- there is also a duality, you can learn from the consequences of your actions... which is probably what I prefer the most

[Taknamay]

Universalist (ethical statements are always true) vs. Relativist (ethical statements are not always true)
Confused -- Do you mean true as in valid, necessary, correct and by a personal or absolute standard

Ok, maybe if I give you an example.

Universalist: It is wrong to kill.

Relativist: It is wrong to kill [in this situation].

Does that make sense? You would think most people are relativist, but not really.


Edit: Never mind, I'm wrong. I think I am taking that one out. It's a bit redundant.

[Creepy-male]

Ok, maybe if I give you an example.

Universalist: It is wrong to kill.

Relativist: It is wrong to kill [in this situation].

Does that make sense? You would think most people are relativist, but not really.


Edit: Never mind, I'm wrong. I think I am taking that one out. It's a bit redundant.

Nah I eventually got what you meant, keep it in... It reminded me of this discussion at 3:24 and 5:35

[mu4]

The debates about morality generally are in many directions imo. Sometime it's really not about what is moral or immoral, but rather, what constitute a appropriate punishment for a act that is viewed as immoral.

Is stoning a appropriate punishment for adultery, is that appropriate for murder?

[Pookie]

My most developed Functions in my own percieved order:
Actual type: IEI

Dichotomy choices:
Moralist - Morals are a concept. I believe in the concept, therefore I believe in Morals as intrinsically beneficial. Nihilism IMO, is either a philosophical stance on subjectivism, or an excuse to excuse Self-absorbed behavior. Depending on the person.

Cognitivist - Proven is a tricky word. Morality is subjective, so you know, how can you prove an idea. And vice versa, how can you disprove an idea. But, i think Morality is definitely developed via cognitive processes. I really couldn't see someone argue the opposite with any sort of soundness or validity.

Moral Realist - Because variables and dynamics constantly change the context of a situation, There is no right moral stance that is applicable to all. Example: Murder is wrong. And i agree in theory that it is. However, should you murder a serial rapist to save the life of a child, if it was the only way? I think you should. I know i should. So murder isn't always wrong. In my opinion, Moral is fruitless without Ethic. And to have solid applicable Ethics you have to transpose your beliefs into the world realistically. Part of this is accepting that nothing is ever always black and white. Ying Yang Magic.

Utilitarian - I feel it is more moral to have a positive effect with a shitty action, than it is to do the "right" thing when it causes shitty consequences. I feel this way because I've been ingrained with the super-philosophy that the ultimate moral is love. And that to truly love, requires the ability to sacrifice of oneself for the benefit of what one loves. Not saying you have to, but i feel that if you can't, it's not really love. Ultimately it's the result that matters, because that's really what effects those you love. It's what they see; It's what shapes them. Following the right action, i feel is more of personal benefit. Which Cognitively is focused on helping yourself, rather than helping others. Morally, i feel that's corrupt, if one has to take priority. The priority should be the things you love and not yourself.

Subjectivist - What's understanding the moral if not a person? If the understanding is done outside of the self... well nothing was understood. Anything Conceptual is subjective. Bottom line. The brain itself is wired to understand any given "thing" in terms of a symbol that represents it. The brain processes information in Metaphor. Words are a metaphor for ideas. Names are a metaphor for people. There is no such thing(IMO) as objective understanding. Well, i guess if you believe in the secret or a similar philosophy you could make an arguement that the interconnectedness of all things exists objectively as a force outside of themselves. But even then, it connects to the individual, so even in that theory Subjectivity is still half of the interaction.

Retributive & Restorative - Some people can learn and strive to better themselves. Some people choose not to, and/or are just biologically incapable(personally, not sure if there's really a separation of the two, or even if either one is just a false idea people cling to because its comforting [examples. "I can't help but rape, im sick" & "they are all sicko's who only care about themselves"], either way, i can't say that either argument is wrong). Retribution and Restoration should be taken in a case by case basis. If their intention is to effect others negatively for their own pleasure, Reciprocate. Give them Retribution so you feel good. It's what they do. It's what they deserve. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. But, if genuinely their actions weren't purposefully harming others, they deserve restoration. That is, if they can actually alter their behavior. Now of course, the big issue here is how to intuit where they stand along this framework. As we are all people, our judgements/actions/inklings are fallible. We could be wrong. But deep down, i believe a strong person who has the heart of others in mind is capable of deciphering this riddle in a way that, although not perfect, is accurate to the extent of their compassion.

Also, i feel all Dichotomy in practice is a sliding scale.

Great thread IMO

[WVBRY]

NTR

Moralist (there are morals) vs. Nihilist (there are no morals)

Actually nihilist means there are no values, not there are no morals. Most moral systems seem nihilistic to me.

[DividedsGhost]

Personally, I can't choose any of those; I don't believe in absolute philosophies (or seeing things as absolutely in any way) because it ends up feeling like if I don't challenge the absolute, I am giving up my freedom for another person's benefit or morality; it's equivalent to taking sides in a dualism, which I see as inherently against any ideas of moral perfection existing.

I consider not judging people to be moral perfection; but because we are all human and need to make decisions between whether to value one person over another for whatever reasons, I realize that view is unpractical at times to life itself. So I don't see people as flawed either for needing to judge others.

The idea of dualism as it relates to morality, I think scares a lot of people because it deduces that the good guy can't exist without the bad guy and that whether a person belongs to the good or bad camp ends up being a question of who you sympathize with more (since we can empathize with someone, but not be required to sympathize with them). For instance, if someone causes me pain in some way, from my perspective I want to stop that. The problem is in how I decide to stop them. For example,

If the pain is happening while I attempt to stop it, I am now judging the other person and acting to reduce their freedom in some way and may deem it necessary to hurt them to do it. How much deterrence should I inflict and in what ways? How do I know that what I do to them is "fair"?

If the pain has ended, will the person do it again? How do I know that they will do it again? If it's not going to happen again, should I be concerned with retribution, since hurting them might hurt other people that the person knows, or hurting them might cause them to hurt someone else whereas doing nothing might produce more good. If I think it's going to happen again, what's the best way to stop it? Should I hurt them with negative reinforcement? Should I reduce their freedom? Should I use positive reinforcement and forgo retribution?

Retribution is a big part of justice, which aims to cause loss to another person for a theoretically and subjectively measured loss they have committed to another person; most people I encounter don't see or understand the difference between justice and retribution; and the line between vengeance and retribution will depend on what an individual deems as a "fair" measurement of restitution.

One thing that is nice about the types is that they can show you how someone will try to see another as bad or evil for thinking a certain way. An SEI pressured me into watching a movie called "The Blind Side" and the main character (who I thought was an Fi-leading character, presumably ESI) named Michael Oher got mad at Sandra Bullock's character (who I typed as ESE) for pressuring him to go to a school they wanted him to go to; he felt he had no choice in the matter and felt cheated because they gave him the illusion that he did (typical Alpha-SF Fe). The SEI said that he "shouldn't feel that way" and I said I agreed with him, and she told me "I shouldn't", exact words, and that I was "telling her" how she should think/feel, simply because I thought she was biased/unfair. I tried explaining how she was being unfair and denying the feelings/perspective of another person for her own and that no one was denying hers; she instead got slightly hysterical saying she didn't want "to think" (that I was bugging her unjustifiably to her I guess) and just wanted to enjoy the film.

Sigh...and she doesn't realize or care that she was being the immoral/unethical judgmental person in the situation. A lot of what constitutes morality for people includes a lot of I care about acting against you, but don't care that you're different than me or that your situation is different than me, to do it; and a lot of times, this is just a matter of making a simple decision for people. It personally sucks because morality has always been a big concern to me and the more I educate myself on it, I find other people to be unknowledgeable, judgmental, and biased. And somehow, because I don't want to be a part of that, I'm deemed unethical by them. It's so fucking depressing to know how stupid/assholish a lot of people really are.

anyway...

I just tend to keep this dualism in mind to myself when I attempt to make moral considerations:
"For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

If you don't know my type and want to know, I'll send you a private message.

I'm really curious if you have anything to add or say in response to this, if you read my posts (sometimes I just post and don't want to argue about my supposed intentions/motivations/semantics, so I don't read some threads I've post in, but can get information on elsewhere from better sources that welcome all kinds of viewpoints and constructive criticism).

[woofwoofl]

Se-SEE here to the best of my knowledge; the "functions in order" thing pookie made led me to going to keys2cognition to run a self-test; as of 1/1/2012, this is where I apparently am (gonna use "code" tag to effectively organize a table):

Se - *************************************** 39.0  excellent use
Te - **************************************  38.1  excellent use
Si - *********************************       34.0  good use
Fe - ******************************          31.0  good use
Fi - ****************************            28.1  average use
Ni - ****************************            28.1  average use
Ne - *********************                   21.0  limited use
Ti - ********************                    20.9  limited use

Moralist (there are morals) vs. Nihilist (there are no morals)
The most obvious and clear markers I know of for moral quality amongst countries, societies, eras, etc., would be the average human life expectancy rates; this is far from complete though, and time spent keeping hyper-detailed score for these things would likely be better spent fixing the problems of the world themselves.


Cognitivist (morality can be proven) vs. Non-cognitivist (morality cannot be proven)
Leaning towards the latter (see above, "far from complete" is less than half done I think).


Divine Command (morality is based on authority) vs. Moral Realist (morality is based on arguments)
How can anything moral be correctly based on authority (as a concept, not the flesh-and-blood people who constitute said "authority") alone?


Utilitarian (results are what matter) vs. Deontological (actions are what matter)
Results matter. Actions achieve results. I lean towards forgiveness for accidental "bad" and gratefulness for accidental "good"...


Objectivist (morality can be understood from outside the person) vs. Subjectivist (morality cannot be understood from outside the person)
This one's a toughie, probably gonna be well-centered between the two...


Retributive (wrongdoers should suffer for their actions) vs. Restorative (wrongdoers should be taught to do the right thing)
The former is cruel and wasteful, the latter is right in just about all meanings of the term. Gonna go with option two here...

[Taknamay]

Hmm. I'm thinking about removing "Moralist vs. Nihilist" simply because if taken literally a nihilist would have no reason to answer the next questions. I really only put it there since I wanted a base to start with.

[Radio]

Moralist (there are morals) vs. Nihilist (there are no morals)
Moralist - morals are cool

Cognitivist (morality can be proven) vs. Non-cognitivist (morality cannot be proven)
Cognitivist - damage is tangible and can be measured.

Divine Command (morality is based on authority) vs. Moral Realist (morality is based on arguments)
There's no such thing as a divine command.

Utilitarian (results are what matter) vs. Deontological (actions are what matter)
A combination of both; in more exaggerated cases I lean towards utilitarian.

Objectivist (morality can be understood from outside the person) vs. Subjectivist (morality cannot be understood from outside the person)
The former, morality can only be measured in reference to the external world.

Universalist (ethical statements are always true) vs. Relativist (ethical statements are not always true)
I don't know.

Retributive (wrongdoers should suffer for their actions) vs. Restorative (wrongdoers should be taught to do the right thing)
Restorative.

[mu4]

Moralist (there are morals) vs. Nihilist (there are no morals)
Inconsequential question, how morals are defined is what matters

Cognitivist (morality can be proven) vs. Non-cognitivist (morality cannot be proven)
Inconsequential question, how morals are defined is what matters

Divine Command Theorist (morality is based on authority) vs. Moral Realist (morality is based on arguments)
Moral realist, morality is defined based on ongoing series of arguments

Utilitarian (results are what matter) vs. Deontological (actions are what matter)
Utilitarian with some Deontological application, evaluation of morality cannot occur with perfect information and not all consequences of actions can be known

Objectivist (morality can be understood from outside the person) vs. Subjectivist (morality cannot be understood from outside the person)
Both, the reasons for morality and the utilitarian evaluation of morality involve both perspectives

Universalist (ethical statements are always true) vs. Relativist (ethical statements are not always true)
Relativist, however, people can make ethical statements they believe to be always true.

Retributive (wrongdoers should suffer for their actions) vs. Restorative (wrongdoers should be taught to do the right thing)
Retributive as a default path, restorative as a harder path. Restorative path should involve in restitution to society equal to a significant part of jail time. I.E 1 year in jail = 3 month community service, garbage pickup/etc. I think people this sort of mechanism will remove from consideration many people who would otherwise use redemptive mechanisms to shorten jail time and reduce punishment. Also victim-less crimes such as drug use and prostitution should be addressed exclusively with restorative mechanisms.

[ashlesha]

Moralist (there are morals) vs. Nihilist (there are no morals)
my mind says that morals are cultural and subjective and my gut says that there are things that are just right and wrong.

Cognitivist (morality can be proven) vs. Non-cognitivist (morality cannot be proven
of course it can't be proven. you could scientifically determine why people have certain morals but that isn't the same thing.

Divine Command Theorist (morality is based on authority) vs. Moral Realist (morality is based on arguments)
neither, i can't answer this. you know what's right because you just know, not because arguments tell you so. but i don't believe in a higher power.

Utilitarian (results are what matter) vs. Deontological (actions are what matter)
i lean toward actions>results in theory. but basically everyone has good intentions so at some point this is wrong. in practice i take it more case-by-case.

Objectivist (morality can be understood from outside the person) vs. Subjectivist (morality cannot be understood from outside the person)
subjectivist.

Universalist (ethical statements are always true) vs. Relativist (ethical statements are not always true)
see moralist vs. nihilist.

Retributive (wrongdoers should suffer for their actions) vs. Restorative (wrongdoers should be taught to do the right thing)
this is case-by-case too. i don't think everyone can be taught.

[Absurd]

I find your questions hard to answer.

Moralist (there are morals) vs. Nihilist (there are no morals)

I'm no nihilist as far as I am concerned.

Cognitivist (morality can be proven) vs. Non-cognitivist (morality cannot be proven)

No definite answer here.

Divine Command Theorist (morality is based on authority) vs. Moral Realist (morality is based on arguments)

Former, I think.

Utilitarian (results are what matter) vs. Deontological (actions are what matter)

No definite answer here.

Objectivist (morality can be understood from outside the person) vs. Subjectivist (morality cannot be understood from outside the person)

No definite answer here.

Universalist (ethical statements are always true) vs. Relativist (ethical statements are not always true)

No definite answer here.

Retributive (wrongdoers should suffer for their actions) vs. Restorative (wrongdoers should be taught to do the right thing)

No definite answer here.