The Logic of Ethics

[UDP]

I don't know how to address this yet, and I am sure there have been other threads, so point me there.


But this thread is about the overlapping effect that T has into F... or at least "apparently so". Even from a logical standpoint, ethics can be interpreted. I don't think ethics can override a true T, no. But I have seen logical connections to F.

All of my ethical decisions are based on logics, and ethics at time seems like another factor, or another part of the situation. (But I believe that part of this, too, is that in my own mind, when I make "ethical decisions", I use logic. But ethics are more secondary). So I wonder, for an F type is this the same method? (but inverted, of course) Such that, you primaliy make decisions based on ethics, but then use logic (infused with ethics) when in logical situations?


Apologies if this makes no sense at all. My wisdom teeth are acting up.

(I wonder also if j/p plays a part here, as in, whether the judging, rational function is leading or secondary --- and how that afffects all this)

Also,
I wonder how this plays a part in dualization, or is related. A dual experience can, I suppose, lead to seeing the overlap, and at least being able to understand that overlap. (I suppose it isn't even necassary to be around a dual, but just an experience that can lead to dualization). For example, after so many years with a few F types, I eventually came to understand a logic behind their ethical/relational approach - humanistic approach. And last night I was explaining the logical side of ethics to a really immature T type (possibly ISTp). It made sense, but it reminded me of this thread taht I had wanted to post some time ago, before the crash.

So, even though it is still from the ingrained functional view, at least awareness of the counterpart can be made. As in, even though a T is still a T type, it can conceive or grasp F, even if only through T terminology.





So any comments about this, or even more so, an possible thoughts abot a Ethical approach to logics would be appreciated. I am sure that you could even translate this into Sensing and Intuition...

[oyburger]

I know what you're talking about. I make "ethical" decisions based on logic and what I find to be logically ethical. From what I've seen, ethical people make logical decisions by what is ethically logical.

Of course I have seen some T types make decisions with no ethics and some F types make decisions with no logic.

[UDP]

mm-hmm

[oyburger]

hmm?

[Creepy-pokeball]

It should be UDPburger

[anndelise]

interesting topic, and one i think is needed to be discussed. However, before i can discuss it...i need to know what you mean when you use the terms "logic" and "logical". (preferably without also using the terms ethics/morals as well)

[oyburger]

It should be UDPburger

Hahaha

Wait, what?

[Creepy-pokeball]

It should be UDPburger

Hahaha

Wait, what?

2 INTj buns with an ENFp in the middle...

[UDP]

hmm?

I was agreeing with you.

It should be UDPburger

Hahaha

Wait, what?

I'mnot so sure about that one, either.


I think it is a comment about us being similar.

[Creepy-pokeball]

I think it is a comment about us being similar.

Very clever

[UDP]

....

[oyburger]

2 INTj buns with an ENFp in the middle...

Mmmm, I love ENFp sandwiches

[anndelise]

*sigh*

so much for "logical" discussion

[UDP]

Just be patient, it will come.

[oyburger]

Ok, ok sorry.

interesting topic, and one i think is needed to be discussed. However, before i can discuss it...i need to know what you mean when you use the terms "logic" and "logical". (preferably without also using the terms ethics/morals as well)

I assumed that by logical we meant what we usually mean by logical or "The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning."
There was no new meaning by adding the word ethics into it.

[UDP]

Essentially I used the ethics/logics dichotmey that is found on Rick's site.

[Ms. Kensington]

....

yeah I think that its clear how feeling and thinking are both judging functions. Does that answer your questions on how they seem to overlap? (they are similar)

[UDP]

Yes, Ms. K.

I believe that my insight eventually lead to that. It really was more a study of the rational judding j functions, as I see it now. It also improved my understanding of socionics inseeing how it would affect intertype relations.

It puts a new dimension to why I don't get along with ESFps so well.

[anndelise]

Ok, ok sorry.

interesting topic, and one i think is needed to be discussed. However, before i can discuss it...i need to know what you mean when you use the terms "logic" and "logical". (preferably without also using the terms ethics/morals as well)

I assumed that by logical we meant what we usually mean by logical or "The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning."
There was no new meaning by adding the word ethics into it.

I guess what I'm trying to figure out is why ya'll don't think "ethics" isn't just another "subject" that is reasoned out, follows a structure of propositions, etc etc.

The only real differences is that F and N use internal qualities as their info base, and T and S use external qualities as their info base. At least according to socionic's aspects of reality thing.

I'm attempting to figure out one of the socionics sites http://informacionika.narod.ru/aspects.html which also has N and T as abstractness and S and F as "the involvement".

So, off the top of my head and without delving too far yet, it seems that say
Fs are looking at the internal qualities which are involved,
Ts are looking at the abstracted external qualities,
Ns are looking at the abstracted internal qualities, and
Ss are looking at the external qualities which are involved.

On a more Jungian side, I think I read someone mention that
T = analysis and
F = synthesis
(aren't these both forms of logical reasoning?)

[Logos]

I see them as reasoning functions, or the tools used measure and to reach a decision accordingly. "F" people reason using their ethics and emotions, while "T" people reason using logic and facts. That is not to say that feelers do not use logic, but that what propels their logic is their ethics, whereas a thinker's sense of ethics may be propelled by their logic.

[UDP]

I guess what I'm trying to figure out is why ya'll don't think "ethics" isn't just another "subject" that is reasoned out, follows a structure of propositions, etc etc.

...

The only real differences is that F and N use internal qualities as their info base, and T and S use external qualities as their info base. At least according to socionic's aspecies, and
Ss are looking at the external qualities which are involved.

On a more Jungian side, I think I read someone mention that
T = analysis and
F = synthesis
(aren't these both forms of logical reasoning?)

I don't know if I said it, or even how clearly, but yes, that was essentially my conclusion, or self-revelation, perhaps. I have 'noticed' that, now.

[oyburger]

I see them as reasoning functions, or the tools used measure and to reach a decision accordingly. "F" people reason using their ethics and emotions, while "T" people reason using logic and facts. That is not to say that feelers do not use logic, but that what propels their logic is their ethics, whereas a thinker's sense of ethics may be propelled by their logic.

Right. But like I said earlier, I know T people who don't use ethics and F people who don't use logic.

I guess what I'm trying to figure out is why ya'll don't think "ethics" isn't just another "subject" that is reasoned out, follows a structure of propositions, etc etc.

Are you trying to ask why we think ethics can be reasoned out? The wording confused me.
This might be a stupid question (if that is what you were trying to say), but why not?

[anndelise]

I see them as reasoning functions, or the tools used measure and to reach a decision accordingly. "F" people reason using their ethics and emotions, while "T" people reason using logic and facts. That is not to say that feelers do not use logic, but that what propels their logic is their ethics, whereas a thinker's sense of ethics may be propelled by their logic.

Right. But like I said earlier, I know T people who don't use ethics and F people who don't use logic.

What about the T people who let their "emotions" overrun their reasoning abilities? Nothing as funny as a normally very reasonable (as in, clear in his reasons why certain actions/events take place, etc.) ranting and raving cuz he got pulled over for running a stop light.

I guess what I'm trying to figure out is why ya'll don't think "ethics" isn't just another "subject" that is reasoned out, follows a structure of propositions, etc etc.

Are you trying to ask why we think ethics can be reasoned out? The wording confused me.
This might be a stupid question (if that is what you were trying to say), but why not?

(hey, i'm always asking questions, most of which make no sense to others)
I'm saying that ethics is merely a subject that has been reasoned out. How well depends upon the person/topic. And I don't understand how/why people don't see it that way. (I would say "much like socionics" but then some people would argue that socionics isn't logical.)

[anndelise]

Fs are looking at the internal qualities which are involved,
Ts are looking at the abstracted external qualities,
Ns are looking at the abstracted internal qualities, and
Ss are looking at the external qualities which are involved.

I should have pointed something like the following out:
If you'll note the post I wrote above, once a person is "involved" in the subject, then those who are focused on the abstracted qualities find the one who is involved..unreasonable...illogical.

T types don't normally involve themselves, especially NTs. (N and T are both about abstractedness, S and F are both about involved-ness.) But even an NT can't remain apart for everything. They are still creatures of earthly existence, with all the capacities of humanity...including S and F. So, while an NT might be the ultimate in trying to remain separated from involved qualities.....they are still susceptible to it. And, of course, they would consider anyone who looks at what all is involved in a subject/topic, they see it as being illogical..aka unreasonable. (Of course, to those who look at what all is involved in a subject/topic, they view the one who refuses to take those things into consideration as illogical.)
***

And, just in case you aren't totally confused yet:

NTs are looking at the abstracted internal AND external qualities.
SFs are looking at the involved external AND internal qualities.

NFs are looking at the abstracted AND involved internal qualities.
STs are looking at the abstracted AND involved external qualities.


How these qualities are processed, produces its own logical system...hence types.

[oyburger]

What about the T people who let their "emotions" overrun their reasoning abilities? Nothing as funny as a normally very reasonable (as in, clear in his reasons why certain actions/events take place, etc.) ranting and raving cuz he got pulled over for running a stop light.

Yes, that is funny, and its something I'm quite guilty of too (not being pulled over, just ranting). However its not funny when emotional people become very logical, it just seems weird.

I'm saying that ethics is merely a subject that has been reasoned out.

Yes, I think so too. But I think some might disagree and say that for them its a "gut" feeling, whatever that means.

[anndelise]

I'm saying that ethics is merely a subject that has been reasoned out.

Yes, I think so too. But I think some might disagree and say that for them its a "gut" feeling, whatever that means.

Yeah, the gut feeling thing. Hmmm, I have always attributed it to my "unconscious" doing the reasoning part. Whether I listen to it depends on whether I"ve found it's previous conclusions on such and such topic to be trustworthy or not. I mean, if there is a lot of stuff involved, and timing is an issue, how efficient is it to wait until all the info has passed through my 7 +/-2 bits of awareness before acting upon it? That just seems...very irrational to me.

(Oh, and by "unconscious" I am referring to the NOT the 7 +/-2 bits of info we are aware of at any given time.)

[oyburger]

Yes, I can understand what you mean anndelise. For me, if ethics are involved, I conciously examine them to see how logical they are.

Of course I don't have time to examine them if my body reacts before my brain and I go off like a mad-woman.

[Logos]

However its not funny when emotional people become very logical, it just seems weird.

This is where you try and beat them at their own game and make an appeal to their ethics or their emotions. It slaps them back down to earth, and you can resume your own logic games against them. :wink:

[UDP]

That's what I call a logical fodunk. Amen, brother.

[anndelise]

Those last three posts should be in the "What annoys an ENFp?" thread!

[Creepy-Diana]

.