considering their dominant function?
Are Fi types Unlikely to do evil,
considering their dominant function?
Fi types are more likely to have a very "good" reason to do the evil thing. They won't do evil things just because the feel like it.
EIE, ENFj, intuitive subtype.
E3 (probably 3w4)
Cool ILI hubbys are better than LSIs any time!
Old blog: http://firsttimeinusa.blogspot.com/
New blog: http://having-a-kid.blogspot.com/
Answer: no.
Gamma Fi is either unconditional love, or cold blooded hatred.
Kristiina: there is no reason to do evil things.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Why "No" FDG?
FDG, yes there is. Remember ******, he tried to cleanse the world of evil non-humans who take the best jobs and have control over so much money.
****** never said, "ok, I'm gonna do evil stuff now and I'm going to kill lots of people, muahahahaaaa" :wink:
EIE, ENFj, intuitive subtype.
E3 (probably 3w4)
Old blog: http://firsttimeinusa.blogspot.com/
New blog: http://having-a-kid.blogspot.com/
Uh, it clearly isn't a "good reason". I won't even bother explaning why, c'mon.Originally Posted by Kristiina
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
FDG, it's not a good reason in your opinion!that doesn't matter. It's a strong conviction that he's doing the world a favor. He never thought he was doing evil stuff.
EIE, ENFj, intuitive subtype.
E3 (probably 3w4)
Old blog: http://firsttimeinusa.blogspot.com/
New blog: http://having-a-kid.blogspot.com/
No.
People with weak Fi do evil things.
anyone can do evil things, if they justify it to themself
Fi people use different means of justifying it
ESFps, ISFjs, ENFps, and INFjs can be racists, murderers, wife beaters, child molesters, etc
Seriously... Hugo, FDG, and Rocky, I certainly hope you've seen enough in your lives to know that ExTps aren't evil and Fi types aren't all good. How ridiculous.
Kristiina is correct. (though using hilter as an example was a bit misleading)
Wtf?? I agree with you, I said that Fi types can be just as evil. Then Kristiina argued for moral relativism.
Kristiina, it is objectively evil because it has made people worse off without anyone being better off in the end
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
It doesn't matter. ****** still did those things while thinking that he was doing the world a favor. Sane people never do huge evil things without thinking that these things have good reasons. The stronger the moral beliefs, the more likely the person is to break society standards when fighting for a "good cause".
There is no objectivity with Fi. Fi is personal morals that might not be the same as society morals.
If you want objective morals, look up Fe in stead.
EIE, ENFj, intuitive subtype.
E3 (probably 3w4)
Old blog: http://firsttimeinusa.blogspot.com/
New blog: http://having-a-kid.blogspot.com/
You mean insane, I hope. Sane people could never believe that evil things can basically have good reasons, because there is a logical contradiction: evil is the diametrical opposite of true. An analogy would be A->A!, which is clearly impossible. Sane people do not believe in illogical, mystical happening.
I agree with this part; I never said that they are necessarily coincident with society's morals; however, Fi needs coherence too, so that I doubt that it can conceive the implication that from an incredibly evil thing stems something good.There is no objectivity with Fi. Fi is personal morals that might not be the same as society morals.
If you want objective morals, look up Fe in stead.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
"objectively evil" is a funny notion, a meaningless combination as the word 'evil' implies subjectivity. Each individual may be able to rationalise and have a logical reason why something is good or evil. which may go with, or against other individuals or general society, but that dosent enhance or take away the strength of their position on something. Something that you consider good or evil may not be true for someone else, and you both may be right or both wrong, as objective subjectivity dosent exist.
On the wider scale, something is considered good if general society (ie the large majority) considers it good, eg competing for jobs (maybe there is a better way to get people working jobs that are more fufilling on average?). Something is considered bad if general society (ie the large majority) considers it bad, eg war (maybe the worlds people will benifit as a result of a war?), and something where in society these is no large majority on either side of a debate are considered neither good or bad, eg abortion, but in time as one point of view comes to dominate, good or bad will be assigned to each viewpoint accordingly.
evil = subjective, true = objective ..........they are not compatible in this way.
Friendly ISTp
Interested in everything, yes, EVERYTHING
Flower's motto: Life's too short even to do the things you want to, let alone the things you dont!!
I meant sane. People who are generally sane can do evil things. They can kill people who are totally evil from their perspective, they can steal if they think it's fair, etc.You mean insane, I hope. Sane people could never believe that evil things can basically have good reasons, because there is a logical contradiction: evil is the diametrical opposite of true. An analogy would be A->A!, which is clearly impossible. Sane people do not believe in illogical, mystical happening.
Insane people might not need reasons at all. Like for example one guy killed a teenage girl because he wanted to know what killing feels like. Curiosity/sensation isn't reason enough, IMO. This is more likely not part of Fe/Fi scale.
Insane people might not even consider the morality of their actions.
Besides, I'm not sure if evil exists. I don't think objective evil exists. What is evil in one persons eyes, is good in the eyes of another.
(I can see the contradiction in what I said, because raping little children is always evil in my eyes, no matter what the reasons may be.)
EIE, ENFj, intuitive subtype.
E3 (probably 3w4)
Old blog: http://firsttimeinusa.blogspot.com/
New blog: http://having-a-kid.blogspot.com/
Sorry, you're right, that was a typo. I meant "good"; not "true"evil = subjective, true = objective ..........they are not compatible in this way.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
You know, sane people actually know whether another person is doing evil, or not. The fact that their perispective is right i.e. it doesn't infringe other people's network of personal rights, it's a sign of their sanity.I meant sane. People who are generally sane can do evil things. They can kill people who are totally evil from their perspective, they can steal if they think it's fair, etc.You mean insane, I hope. Sane people could never believe that evil things can basically have good reasons, because there is a logical contradiction: evil is the diametrical opposite of true. An analogy would be A->A!, which is clearly impossible. Sane people do not believe in illogical, mystical happening.
For example, Islamic/Christian fundamentalists kill people that, from their perispective, are totally evil. However, they're clearly commonly recognized as not sane.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
He didn't come up with the final solution.
That was Himmler's idea. poor guy never gets credit.
People never mean to do evil things, they do them because for some reason, they think the evil things they do are right at the time, or they fool themselves into thinking that.
I agree, but do you think that the fact that they do evil things for a reason they perceive as essentially good directly links to them being sane?
I don't mean to say that they're necessarily insane. However, I think that is definitely a point against sanity, not in favour of.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
No. Honestly I think it is mostly very good people that get sucked into doing very evil things.
Who is the judge of what is good and what is evil anyway?
It's subjective. And it's hard not to fool oneself. Nobody wants to feel evil.
Why? I think it begs the question. If they do very evil things, they weren't good in the first place.
IMHO, everything that voluntarily causes harm to another subject's rights can be considered as evil. I am not a person likely to judge single episodes, or single charachters. However, I think that the underlying principle is quite clear.Who is the judge of what is good and what is evil anyway?
Indeed.It's subjective. And it's hard not to fool oneself. Nobody wants to feel evil.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Some "good", however you want to define it, and sane people get sucked into doing "evil" things all the time. People sometimes make mistakes and recognize that later. Perhaps a better quetion would be: Are they sane when they commit evil acts?Why? I think it begs the question. If they do very evil things, they weren't good in the first place.
All Hail The Flying Spaghetti Monster
First of all, we need to clarify what I am disputing.Some "good", however you want to define it, and sane people get sucked into doing "evil" things all the time. People sometimes make mistakes and recognize that later. Perhaps a better quetion would be: Are they sane when they commit evil acts?Why? I think it begs the question. If they do very evil things, they weren't good in the first place.
There are basically two opinions I don't agree with:
1)That the fact that somebody does evil things is actually an indicator of him being sane.
2)That it's mostly very good people that are sucked into doing very evil things.
The italized words are paramount. I woulnd't have any problem if the sentences were to mean that
1)Sane people can do evil things.
2)Good people can do evil things.
The way they've been phrased in the first place makes it look like doing evil things logically implies that you're sane and a very good person. Of course you can be a good person and do evil things. However, I cannot infer this from the sole observation of evil acts. [/img]
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
OK, I agree with this too. I just didn't think that evil acts are limited to insane and evil people
All Hail The Flying Spaghetti Monster
lol I should refrain from posting within the first hour from waking upWtf?? I agree with you, I said that Fi types can be just as evil. Then Kristiina argued for moral relativism.
Kristiina, it is objectively evil because it has made people worse off without anyone being better off in the end
You sound like you have much wisdom, my child
Just relax, its what Jesus would do
ENTp
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote