Morality and Type

[EyeSeeCold]

I think this is what gives the attribute of morality.

For example:
interprets the long term cause-effect relationship of explicit temporal behavior - conscientious
interprets the long term cause-effect relationship of explicit spatial behavior - cautious

[Cuddly McFluffles]

I think this is what gives the attribute of morality.

For example:
interprets the long term cause-effect relationship of explicit temporal behavior - conscientious
interprets the long term cause-effect relationship of explicit spatial behavior - cautious

What is this in English?

[EyeSeeCold]

I think it can apply to any function.

If we refer to the IM aspects, only the Introverted aspects observe cause-effect. The Extraverted aspects observe behavior but are blind to the effect, or the development of said behavior.

In practice, this crudely equates to:
Extraverts acting but not considering
Introverts considering but not acting.

I'm wondering if we are on the same page here. Cause-effect applies in that pays attention to how its words and actions affect the other person (and vice versa). If that is what you are trying to say, then yes, I agree.

Yes, that's what I mean.

What is this in English?

It means, for example that:
IxFjs monitor temporal developments. X action will lead to X state
INxps monitor spatial developments. X state will lead to X action

So IxFjs will watch their and other people's actions for fear of some unwanted state.
So INxps will watch their and other people's/things' states for fear of some unwanted action.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

I edited my post. You may want to take a look at it.

[EyeSeeCold]

I edited my post. You may want to take a look at it.

---

However, given that cause-effect is not specific to , you cannot take the term on its own as a substitute for "morality".

Oh, I'm not. I was showing how morality exists partly in the aspect of . Morality that deals with being conscientious, at least.

[DividedsGhost]

pretty sure that's the same as amoral.

i was trying to keep an open mind when i saw the op because i thought maybe his conception of morality wouldn't be something so insulting, but he defined how he meant it in a later post.

Wait, wait. Let me get my definitions out here first. I think you're misunderstanding me.

Moral Person - Consideration of the established rules, relationships, and customs of a culture or society of importance. These things are seen as rather concrete. They are seen as everlasting or at least supported to be. *This boils down to a strong sense of how we should treat one another...basically...I'm sorry, but it does*

Amoral Person - Is not really sure that these rules, relationships, and customs really exist in any concrete sense. They see them as loosely connected and easily changed and influenced. Can attempt to create a sense of rules, relationships, and customs without really believing that what they are doing is concrete or will last very long even and isn't really supported to be everlasting.

Immoral Person - Consideration of the established rules, relationships, and customs of a culture or society as not important. These rules, relationships, and customs are seen as self-serving or a manifestation of trying to control the freedoms of individuals and groups.

So for the record, when I refer to immoral versus moral I'm not talking about sympathy or empathy. Fi-PoLRs can be very empathetic. But that's not the point of this.

I just wanted to clarify a bit the concepts. I feel this distinction is important unless someone can give me a good reason why they think it is incorrect.

So, anyway...

[stray]

Moral Person - Consideration of the established rules, relationships, and customs of a culture or society of importance. These things are seen as rather concrete. They are seen as everlasting or at least supported to be. *This boils down to a strong sense of how we should treat one another...basically...I'm sorry, but it does*[url]

A person could be highly moral, and yet at odds with the surrounding rules and culture. They may have more general, abstract concerns about morality. Or they might be so moral that may even try to reform the surrounding culture.

Some of the most famous philosophers/moralists were doing things along these lines. Either they were killed for it, caused a ruckus, or they were alone in their work. Socrates, Gandhi, Jesus, MLK Jr., Joan of Arc, etc.. No matter how expressed it, you couldn't accuse them of not being moral in some manner. And their morality didn't entail any of this cookie cutter, "established rules" angle on things. That's very one dimensional.

[DividedsGhost]

A person could be highly moral, and yet at odds with the surrounding rules and culture. They may have more general, abstract concerns about morality. Or they might be so moral that may even try to reform the surrounding culture.

Some of the most famous philosophers/moralists were doing things along these lines. Either they were killed for it, caused a ruckus, or they were alone in their work. Socrates, Gandhi, Jesus, MLK Jr., Joan of Arc, etc.. No matter how expressed it, you couldn't accuse them of not being moral in some manner. And their morality didn't entail any of this cookie cutter, "established rules" angle on things. That's very one dimensional.

And these types were not Fi-valuing by my definitions. I've clarified the concepts. Don't argue this one dimensional bullshit. I know better than anyone the abstract nature of morality, but this is how socionics uses them to understand some of the relations. There is nothing cookie-cutter about the definitions. Most of these people were killed for going against established society.

You just don't like the fact that I'm using "morality" to mean something you don't think encompasses the nature of it "well enough" since no definition will ever suffice anyway. You complain a lot for someone that hasn't even "attempted" to clarify anything. Nit-picking is not constructive and shows me your ignorance.

These threads are meant to be constructive; if you people are going to criticize and critic you should have another idea in mind because just attacking ideas stops discussion and makes people not want to discuss this anymore. Quite being pricks.

Edit: I don't include Jesus since I no nothing about his actual life, and neither does anyone else.

[stray]

These threads are meant to be constructive; if you people are going to criticize and critic you should have another idea in mind because just attacking ideas stops discussion and makes people not want to discuss this anymore. Quite being pricks.

Sigh. Ok, buddy. I'll be constructive.

You sound like you need someone to suck your dick. Asap. Hope that works out for you.

Happy?

[Cuddly McFluffles]

And these types were not Fi-valuing by my definitions. I've clarified the concepts. Don't argue this one dimensional bullshit. I know better than anyone the abstract nature of morality, but this is how socionics uses them to understand some of the relations. There is nothing cookie-cutter about the definitions. Most of these people were killed for going against established society.

You just don't like the fact that I'm using "morality" to mean something you don't think encompasses the nature of it "well enough" since no definition will ever suffice anyway. You complain a lot for someone that hasn't even "attempted" to clarify anything. Nit-picking is not constructive and shows me your ignorance.

These threads are meant to be constructive; if you people are going to criticize and critic you should have another idea in mind because just attacking ideas stops discussion and makes people not want to discuss this anymore. Quite being pricks.

Edit: I don't include Jesus since I no nothing about his actual life, and neither does anyone else.

No. types do not automatically support and conform to the surrounding values and traditions simply because they are majority sentiment. Nor are quadra people incapable of doing so. You claim your view is socionically supported. Where is your source? While we're at it, I'm curious to know how you define to begin with.

You want something you feel is constructive. Alright. Maybe you should scrap this idea and quit trying to describe as absolutely bound by tradition and majority view. It's not that clear cut, and it's not that simple. Also, there's no need to be insulting just because you feel people aren't responding to you correctly.

[rat1]

eh.. Fi is more about personal boundaries / attachments. That is a feeling of morality but the moral dogmas don't come from Fi. Norms like that are more Fe / Te. Ti can also be regulatory, though. It's just instead of ignoring you the person will quote you and berate you with information, like Bolt.

[Jarno]

.

permaban and then back in a week. hehehe.

[blankblank]

And stop all these petty promotional games of "my IE is better than ur IE, cuz ur IE causes <insert character flaw or mental deficiency>."

YES!!!