Results 1 to 40 of 54

Thread: Morality and Type

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Punk
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    TIM
    ESE
    Posts
    1,645
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Morality and Type

    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.

  2. #2
    stray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    862
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.


  3. #3
    Coldest of the Socion EyeSeeCold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Holy Temple of St. Augusta
    Posts
    3,682
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Strong types can be amoral.
    (i)NTFS

    An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
    and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI

    31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
    My work on Inert/Contact subtypes

    Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
    Socionics Tests Database
    Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites


    Fidei Defensor

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    88
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold View Post
    Strong types can be amoral.
    Example? I haven't seen this.

  5. #5
    Coldest of the Socion EyeSeeCold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Holy Temple of St. Augusta
    Posts
    3,682
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Igxfl View Post
    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.
    (i)NTFS

    An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
    and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI

    31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
    My work on Inert/Contact subtypes

    Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
    Socionics Tests Database
    Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites


    Fidei Defensor

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    /
    Posts
    7,038
    Mentioned
    175 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    that was so not a morality test

  7. #7
    Punk
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    TIM
    ESE
    Posts
    1,645
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    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.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    88
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kramer View Post
    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.

  9. #9
    C-ESI-Se 6w7 sx/sp ashlesha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    the center of the universe
    Posts
    15,798
    Mentioned
    909 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kramer View Post
    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.

  10. #10
    Snomunegot munenori2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    TIM
    Introvert sp/sx
    Posts
    7,742
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.
    Moonlight will fall
    Winter will end
    Harvest will come
    Your heart will mend

  11. #11
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,937
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.

  12. #12
    stray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    862
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    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.

  13. #13
    Exodus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,397
    Mentioned
    325 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by straytk View Post
    I think Confucianism might be Gamma in general.
    Yeah, totally. Confucius was probably ESI, maybe EII.

  14. #14
    Éminence grise mikemex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Third Planet
    TIM
    IEE-Ne
    Posts
    1,637
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by munenori2 View Post
    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.
    [] | NP | 3[6w5]8 so/sp | Type thread | My typing of forum members | Johari (Strengths) | Nohari (Weaknesses)

    You know what? You're an individual, and that makes people nervous. And it's gonna keep making people nervous for the rest of your life.
    - Ole Golly from Harriet, the spy.

  15. #15
    Snomunegot munenori2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    TIM
    Introvert sp/sx
    Posts
    7,742
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mikemex View Post
    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.
    Moonlight will fall
    Winter will end
    Harvest will come
    Your heart will mend

  16. #16

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    236
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I used to be 100% nihilist, and I still have nihilistic beliefs, sooo, not really... Religion/spirituality isn't type related.

  17. #17
    Coldest of the Socion EyeSeeCold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Holy Temple of St. Augusta
    Posts
    3,682
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    What's up with EIIs and nihilism?

    I think IJs really are the only "free" types..
    (i)NTFS

    An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
    and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI

    31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
    My work on Inert/Contact subtypes

    Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
    Socionics Tests Database
    Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites


    Fidei Defensor

  18. #18

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    236
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It's hilarious being a fan of both MBTI and socionics. I have Fi in socionics and Fe in MBTI. In MBTI forums, Fe users are accused of being comformists and Fi users of rebels. In socionics forums, apparently, Fi users are accused of being comformists and Fe users of rebels.

    I'll apply this to REAL LIFE. Out of the people I know...
    Comformists: ESE, EII, LII, SIE
    Rebels: LSE, EII, SLE, IEI
    Last edited by blankblank; 04-09-2011 at 02:43 AM.

  19. #19
    So fluffeh. Cuddly McFluffles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    TIM
    ESI
    Posts
    2,768
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Are we usually accused of conformity around here? I had not noticed.
    Johari/Nohari

    "Tell someone you love them today, because life is short; shout it at them in German, because life is also terrifying."

    Fruit, the fluffy kitty.

  20. #20

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    236
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryene Astraelis View Post
    Are we usually accused of conformity around here? I had not noticed.
    I don't notice it as much on this site. On MBTI sites, it's rampant. Perhaps that's because more people frequent MBTI sites, so there's more people there who piss me off.

  21. #21
    Shazaam's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Lamp
    TIM
    AB-IEI-Ni
    Posts
    13,811
    Mentioned
    596 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Fi has nothing to do with morality. If anything, an ENTp gets in way less trouble than an ISFj in the real world, because they tend to be less aggressive and more diplomatic.

    Fi is all about your subjective relationships with other people. A Fi-valuing type will be a lot more confident on who is right for them, but an ENTp and ESTp will travel those waters like a bumbling idiot, despite their higher level of politeness than Fi-valuing types.

    And INFps are sorta blind to it, because we're good at helping others with this- but it's our demonstrative function, so we're kinda blah-ish when we try to apply it to ourselves.

    Like Expat said, Fe is more emotionally subjective, so it makes a lot of thinking errors like 'because this person feels so good to me now, that must mean they're good for me period!' Fi is actually more objective (I mean in technicality, even though both Fe/Fi are about your emotional relationships) and able to see the more long-term picture a lot better.

    Also Fe-valuers have a tendency to want to hold on to relationships based on feelings and nothing but feelings, which isn't really right or wrong in and of itself, and it usually works for us.

    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.
    Basically this. yes. What you just said, in a nutshell.

    And remember these are preferences and it's complicated. You won't 'hate Fe' or 'hate Fi' unless it's specifically your PoLR. An INFp is good at both Fe and Fi, but Fe is our creative function and Fi the demonstrative function, so the Fi is more backgroundy. But we still think Fi is important, it's not like we devalue it or anything, we just value Fe more. This is always true unless it's your polr.

  22. #22

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    88
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't see where the link between morality, politeness, and aggression comes in. Morally conscious people can be highly aggressive in defending/promoting their morals, or glaringly impolite to those who transgress them. Also, if you look at most of the people mentioned before - Ghandi, Jesus, MLK, Joan 'dArc (I'm doubtful of Socrates being Fi) most of them got into HUGE trouble at some point or another, usually because of their moral imperatives.

  23. #23
    Shazaam's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Lamp
    TIM
    AB-IEI-Ni
    Posts
    13,811
    Mentioned
    596 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Also Fi valuers are able to overlook emotional negativity between two people a lot more than a Fe-valuer can. An INFp, ESTp, ENTp, ISFp- all four of those types need the atmosphere to be pleasant and friendly to feel like a true romance is blossoming. The stereotype that INFps like to be raped by negativity is false.

    I mean look at the way Ashton and Galen and the fi-valuers act compared to the Fe-valuers on the forum. They're much more willing to put up with more emotional negativity then Fe types if they feel that the relationship is worth some goal in the end. Although they might be aware of those subjective emotional states, they can bypass them easier or whatever. And Expat talked about this at well. I guess this gives Fi-types the stereotype as being cold or whatever.

    This is only because for a Fe valuer 'My own emotions are what a relationship is' , is inherently different then a Fi valuers mantra; 'My own attitude is what a relationship is.' Feelings and attitude are two different things. =) And there is of course strengths and weaknesses in both perspectives, and inherent biases and prejudices in both. I just read this book by a very strong Fi-valuer (probably Fi ego or maybe Fi creative) and it annoyed me because he blamed all relationship problems on people's feelings (well more like ignored, made fun of this realm) and like most Fi-valuers, criticized that person's 'attitude' instead. It just annoyed me because I'm not a Fi-valuer, and I felt he was ignoring a huge facet of reality.

  24. #24

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    88
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The attitude vs. emotion thing makes a lot of sense. An attitude-based orientation might relate to the mumbo-jumbo about association webs I previously spewed out. A good attitude towards something means mentally grouping it with good things rather than bad ones.

  25. #25
    So fluffeh. Cuddly McFluffles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    TIM
    ESI
    Posts
    2,768
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    B&D, I kind of get what you mean by "attitudes vs emotions", but could you possibly expand on it a little more? I get the emotions half of the equation, just not the attitudes part; even as an ego, I have difficulty relating to it.
    Johari/Nohari

    "Tell someone you love them today, because life is short; shout it at them in German, because life is also terrifying."

    Fruit, the fluffy kitty.

Posting Permissions

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