I have seen in a number of places that Fi types are more 'moral' than other types. Ti types therefore 'not as moral.' However, to me, this is a misnomer and a gross oversimplification.
Why? Because when different people clash with respect to ethics and morals, it is not usually because one side 'has morals' and the other 'does not.' It is often because different groups of people buy into different ethical systems. Imagine a fundamentalist Christian and a utilitarian arguing about pornography. To the Christian, the utilitarian is a 'pervert.' To the utilitarian, the fundamentalist Christian is 'narrow.' But this debate is not really about which side is trying to be ethical and which one isn't. It is a clash about what ethical system each side belongs to and its inherent beliefs - to both sides, the other side is 'not ethical.' Now consider all of the different ethical systems and how different their ideologies are. Arguments like this must happen all the time, and therefore it is not normally about one side 'trying to be ethical' and the other 'not.'
Also, the theory almost assumes that if you don't buy into ethical principles, you are something logical like Daniel Dennett or Richard Dawkins - i.e., 'The Selfish Gene.' The problem is that people who don't buy into ethical principles at all are usually not operating purely by 'objectivity', 'logic,' 'rationality,' etc. It is usually issues of self-interest that turn people away from moral behaviour. E.g., "Why should I give to charity when I only lose money and there is nothing in it for me." I'd say that is what happens all the time and the person is not operating on principles of logic and objectivity, but rather pure self-interest.
I'd therefore say that equating types with ethical behaviour the way the theory does is wrong. It is more a matter of which ethical systems each type is likely to belong to, and which types operate purely out of self-interest over the others - and I would assume that operating on self-interest is not simply based on principles of logic and objectivity.
Therefore, this part of the theory has to either be left out or redone.
Would you agree?