On Moral Behaviour and 'Fi'

[jason_m]

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?

[Computer Loser]

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.

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.

Wouldn't you agree?

I agree that Fi ethical types ≠ ethical behavior. Ethical behavior is one of many ways Fi can manifest itself, but it's not the only behavior; Fi-types can commit crimes.

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.

I don't think the theory is saying that though, I think people just get confused in applying the theory.

I'd therefore say that equating types with ethical behaviour the way the theory does is wrong.

Where does the theory say this? Just curious

[Nobody]

It's not that Ti isn't moral imo, it does have Fe as a component; but it's just that Fi, as a kind of abstract philosophical whole of the infinite ways that someone can feel about objective happenings, it has a great depth of feeling behind it. That depth can be many combination of things, considering another's subjective feelings or just your own subjective feeling projected onto them, or a selfish feeling, or deep feelings of different kinds of love, or all of the above and more. It's simply the subjective feeling about things that can be rationalized or reasoned like Ti, but its motivation and consideration is some kind of Te objective action - it propels towards some resolution of action. And it's then a moral consideration simply because it is a feeling one. Pure Ti on the other hand, if it is disconnected from Fe, is apathetic and indifferent to how people feel or are impacted by certain objective happenings. It can be as cold as a utilitarian analysis that normalizes and equalizes everyone's feelings about things to the same degree of importance, intensity, meaning, etc. and then makes decisions based on that impartial formulaic thinking. It is still ethics, but in a demented kind of ethics that doesn't care about how people feel about things or even about affecting.

Maybe then, you are correct, that it shouldn't be about ethics per se, since each form of cognition can come up with different kinds of ways to view and model ethics and make decisions, even if they can be quite twisted in their extremity or isolation, even the feeling functions without good thinking functions to back them up. But then you'd also be devaluing the importance of subjective feeling and objective feeling and how that effects and cultivates our ethics. Without some kind of feeling, some kind of passion, we are just automatons that don't care one way or another, like an ocean current that acts as purely objective reality and sees only absolute rules and laws that it must follow, when in actuality life is a force of nature that manipulates objective reality based upon its qualia of it. I know that probably doesn't make sense, but I think it's somewhat meaningful to say Fi and Fe are ethical functions in that regard because they care about, focus on, and utilize passion in creating and applying ethical paradigms. And that's pretty distinctly important. But I guess personally I couldn't care less what it's called as long as this distinction isn't lost in translation.

[Tarnished]

I don't think Fi has anything to do with moral. For me it is, if I love A more than B, so if there is a situation that I can only save 1 person's life, then obviously I gonna save A's ass. That my Fi, it's not moral, its how deep my feeling can go with some one or some thing, how I value someone or something. Fi is about value (feeling), or you can say a system of values. True healthy Fi users will not judge other's behaviours by their's standard (Fi system) because they know each person value different things.

Moral or Justice look like a "rule" that dicide what behaviour is right or wrong in society. Look like Fe/Ti to me.

[jason_m]

It's not that Ti isn't moral imo, it does have Fe as a component; but it's just that Fi, as a kind of abstract philosophical whole of the infinite ways that someone can feel about objective happenings, it has a great depth of feeling behind it. That depth can be many combination of things, considering another's subjective feelings or just your own subjective feeling projected onto them, or a selfish feeling, or deep feelings of different kinds of love, or all of the above and more. It's simply the subjective feeling about things that can be rationalized or reasoned like Ti, but its motivation and consideration is some kind of Te objective action - it propels towards some resolution of action. And it's then a moral consideration simply because it is a feeling one. Pure Ti on the other hand, if it is disconnected from Fe, is apathetic and indifferent to how people feel or are impacted by certain objective happenings. It can be as cold as a utilitarian analysis that normalizes and equalizes everyone's feelings about things to the same degree of importance, intensity, meaning, etc. and then makes decisions based on that impartial formulaic thinking. It is still ethics, but in a demented kind of ethics that doesn't care about how people feel about things or even about affecting.

Maybe then, you are correct, that it shouldn't be about ethics per se, since each form of cognition can come up with different kinds of ways to view and model ethics and make decisions, even if they can be quite twisted in their extremity or isolation, even the feeling functions without good thinking functions to back them up. But then you'd also be devaluing the importance of subjective feeling and objective feeling and how that effects and cultivates our ethics. Without some kind of feeling, some kind of passion, we are just automatons that don't care one way or another, like an ocean current that acts as purely objective reality and sees only absolute rules and laws that it must follow, when in actuality life is a force of nature that manipulates objective reality based upon its qualia of it. I know that probably doesn't make sense, but I think it's somewhat meaningful to say Fi and Fe are ethical functions in that regard because they care about, focus on, and utilize passion in creating and applying ethical paradigms. And that's pretty distinctly important. But I guess personally I couldn't care less what it's called as long as this distinction isn't lost in translation.

Based on your description, I would suppose that I am an ethical type - I am filled with passion on the inside and often on the outside as well. But I was doing some introspecting, and I have realized why I clash with 'Se': I can get incredibly angry on the inside, but I have absolute self-control over my anger. The types that are 'Se' don't, and therefore make me angry. This then makes me feel angry on the inside which I then have to control. However, I don't like having to control my anger, so this is unsettling for me. This process then repeats itself over and over. And it can also be at times someone who simply does not have minimal concern for other people - as minimal concern is all I demand. However, those without minimal concern often do not bother me, as long as they don't create an issue. That was the big issue for me: no self-control over one's anger could be 'Se,' but someone without minimal concern for others as 'Ti' I found bunk. Hence, one reason why I wrote the above post. Even the 'Se': is that really who Carl Jung meant that I should see in a place like 'anger management?' Those were my issues with the theory. I consider (or considered) myself 'Ti,' based on the fact that I prefer higher-order mental processes over low-level detail, which always reads as 'Te' to me, and why I don't go with such people. The 'Fi' as well - at times what they have to say is just 'verbal diarrhea.' But your analysis is really interesting, and makes me wonder if I am an ethical type, because I have such passion for life in general. Someone Ti clearly does not bother me then, because they are dispassionate - as opposed to angry. In any event, interesting insights.

EDIT: I should also add that I am a highly moral person, and find it offensive that I am somehow 'impaired' logically because of this. Hence one of my problems with the theory that is not coming through in my writing..

[Dr PissBender]

I agree that Fi ethical types ≠ ethical behavior. Ethical behavior is one of many ways Fi can manifest itself, but it's not the only behavior; Fi-types can commit crimes.



I don't think the theory is saying that though, I think people just get confused in applying the theory.



Where does the theory say this? Just curious

Fi moral is more like a bro-code, tho Fi creatives may break it at times and twist it to their liking.

Ti moral code is more lawful, Fe serving one. Like the one seen in Social Justice Warriors. If you say the N word YOU'RE OUT. I know an LII dude who gets triggered by every homophobic/xenophobic joke i crack.

[Tarnished]

Based on your description, I would suppose that I am an ethical type - I am filled with passion on the inside and often on the outside as well. But I was doing some introspecting, and I have realized why I clash with 'Se': I can get incredibly angry on the inside, but I have absolute self-control over my anger. The types that are 'Se' to me do not have such self-control, and can display open anger, which only makes me angry on the inside - which I clearly do not want, because it makes me feel angry which I then have to control. And it can also be at times someone who simply does not have minimal concern for other people - as minimal concern is all I demand - but those without minimal concern often do not bother me as much, as long as they don't create an issue. That was the big issue for me: no self-control over one's anger could be 'Se,' but the minimal concern for others as 'Ti' I found bunk. Hence, one reason why I wrote the above post. Even the 'Se': is that really who Carl Jung meant that I should see in a place like 'anger management?' Those were my issues with the theory. I consider (or considered) myself 'Ti,' based on the fact that I prefer higher-order mental processes over low-level detail, which always reads as 'Te' to me, and why I don't go with such people. But your analysis is really interesting, and makes me wonder if I am an ethical type, because I have such passion for life in general. Someone Ti clearly does not bother me then, because they are dispassionate - as opposed to angry. In any event, interesting insights.

strangely that I always feel strong Fe types (including Fi becasue Fi user have strong Fe too) is the one that display open anger, and it make me feel annoy. Maybe becasue I'm Fe polr?

[ashlesha]

Where did you see that Fi types are more moral? I've never seen it in serious sources or from a significant number of ppl. I mostly see rebuttals,idk,lol. Fi deals w morality insofar as "right" and "wrong" is subjective. The facts that subjectivity is in the eye of the beholder and the moral issues are approached w diff elements doesn't make it the clearest thing. Ie the Bible might be objective facts about history versus inaccurate historical data for a logical type, but more like beautiful legend versus viscerally incongruous myth for an ethical type. *Actual* morality (or subjectivity) is something else.

[jason_m]

strangely that I always feel strong Fe types (including Fi becasue Fi user have strong Fe too) is the one that display open anger, and it make me feel annoy. Maybe becasue I'm Fe polr?

They can bother me, and that is why often I wondered if they actually go with 'Se' as a function. But it is different for me. They do not bother me to the degree of types that are purely aggressive.

[Sol]

> I have seen in a number of places that Fi types are more 'moral' than other types.

morality is general F region
Fi types are more moral in perception of Fi valued types

[Rebelondeck]

All types can have or lack morals in the dictionary sense. Fi-types are referred to as moralists but they're not necessarily the most moral; I know a SLI who is moral to the extreme in the right-versus-wrong sense. Fi-types usually think that their valuations are best so try to associate with people who have similar overall values, and some try to sway or convert those that don't. They could be in a street gang and think that a proper criminal should behave a certain way. Ti-types think that their rationalizations are superior to that of others so there's direct similarity to thinking that one's valuations are superior.

a.k.a. I/O

[Not A Communist Shill]

It just isn't fruitful to talk about "Morality".

It would be better to talk about the Big Five trait of Agreeableness, and how this might pair with high and low Introversion in terms of behaviour.

The Neo-PI also has six facets of Agreeableness (Trust, Straightforwardness, Altruism, Compliance, Modesty, and Tender-mindedness, which may be of interest):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreea...#NEO_PI_facets

The sixth trait of the Hexaco Model (mentioned on the above page) is also worth looking into.

To address the absence of measures of Dark triad traits (i.e., narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy), Michael Ashton and Kibeom Lee proposed the addition of a sixth factor to the Five Factor Model.[31] Validated with psycholexical studies similar to those used in the development of the Five Factor Model,[32] the HEXACO Model adds Honesty-Humility to five factors resembling those in the NEO PI.[33] Although Honesty-Humility does not directly correspond to any Big Five trait, it is strongly correlated with the Straightforwardness and Modesty facets of Big Five Agreeableness.

I reckon that would score higher on Trust, Altruism, and Tender-mindedness than , while would score highest on Straightforwardness, Compliance, and Modesty. And possibly would score higher on Trust than .
https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...=1#post1133999

But there is an infinite number of things that could be considered "moral", for example, being hedonistic and open-minded. But historically, Conscientiousness has been well-regarded.

[jason_m]

I should also add that the notion that those who are more dispassionate about logic are better logicians is frustrating to me. Can't one be passionate about logic and reasoning? Can't one be dispassionate about life and not care about logic at all? And is it usually the one who is passionate about such things that is better or those who simply don't care? I am passionate about life in general, and especially passionate about reason and reasoning, and the theory bothers me...

[Djinn]

Morality is a concept of what is “good” or “bad” (optimal/unoptimal, just/unjust, right/wrong, best/worst, etc.) relative to a certain interpreter’s sense of conduct. Fi absolutely has no monopoly on morality. Each socionics IE could apply moral evaluation from its own perspective.
e.g.
Si - equilibrium = good / disequilibrium = bad
Ne - permeable = good / impermeable = bad
Se - impressive = good / unimpressive = bad
Ni - rhythmic = good / arrhythmic = bad
Te - expedient = good / inexpedient = bad
Fi - sentimental = good / unsentimental = bad
Ti - coherent = good / incoherent = bad
Fe - romantic = good / unromantic = bad

The colloquial view of morality is indeed one of sentiment. At least, it seems heavily influenced by sentiment, so I think Fi as “morality” sort of fits.

Unless I’m wrong...

What? Are you sentimental about logic and reason?

[jason_m]

Morality is a concept of what is “good” or “bad” (optimal/unoptimal, just/unjust, right/wrong, best/worst, etc.) relative to a certain interpreter’s sense of conduct. Fi absolutely has no monopoly on morality. Each socionics IE could apply moral evaluation from its own perspective.
e.g.
Si - equilibrium = good / disequilibrium = bad
Ne - permeable = good / impermeable = bad
Se - impressive = good / unimpressive = bad
Ni - rhythmic = good / arrhythmic = bad
Te - expedient = good / inexpedient = bad
Fi - sentimental = good / unsentimental = bad
Ti - coherent = good / incoherent = bad
Fe - romantic = good / unromantic = bad

The colloquial view of morality is indeed one of sentiment. At least, it seems heavily influenced by sentiment, so I think Fi as “morality” sort of fits.

Unless I’m wrong...

What? Are you sentimental about logic and reason?

I understand what you're saying - and it makes sense from my viewpoint. After thinking about their response, I was only responding to 'Nobody's' point about Ti being dispassionate. I therefore did not quote his opinion. I believe that was the confusion.

[Lolita]

Moral behavior in conjunction with social expectations of it is actually Fe- wanting the group to comply with what’s deemed acceptable and appropriate. Fi is like Ti- cold, personal, rational judgment function. Where Ti is concerned with the subjective logical rules as in maxims; Fi is concerned with the subjective ethical rules, i.e. moral principles. Although Fi leads do actually believe they’re morally superior compared to everyone, they’re not ones to enforce their morality upon others. They just judge silently; all Fi egos do. As to Fi egos actually being more “moral” than others in the behavioral sense, that depends vastly on how they were raised. Keep in mind that social behavior is learned, so any type can be moral or immoral in the behavioral sense.

[Nobody]

I'll try my best to unpack, but I'm probably going to misunderstand here,

Based on your description, I would suppose that I am an ethical type - I am filled with passion on the inside and often on the outside as well. But I was doing some introspecting, and I have realized why I clash with 'Se': I can get incredibly angry on the inside, but I have absolute self-control over my anger. The types that are 'Se' don't, and therefore make me angry. This then makes me feel angry on the inside which I then have to control. However, I don't like having to control my anger, so this is unsettling for me. This process then repeats itself over and over. And it can also be at times someone who simply does not have minimal concern for other people - as minimal concern is all I demand. However, those without minimal concern often do not bother me, as long as they don't create an issue. That was the big issue for me: no self-control over one's anger could be 'Se,' but someone without minimal concern for others as 'Ti' I found bunk. Hence, one reason why I wrote the above post. Even the 'Se': is that really who Carl Jung meant that I should see in a place like 'anger management?' Those were my issues with the theory. I consider (or considered) myself 'Ti,' based on the fact that I prefer higher-order mental processes over low-level detail, which always reads as 'Te' to me, and why I don't go with such people. The 'Fi' as well - at times what they have to say is just 'verbal diarrhea.' But your analysis is really interesting, and makes me wonder if I am an ethical type, because I have such passion for life in general. Someone Ti clearly does not bother me then, because they are dispassionate - as opposed to angry. In any event, interesting insights.

EDIT: I should also add that I am a highly moral person, and find it offensive that I am somehow 'impaired' logically because of this. Hence one of my problems with the theory that is not coming through in my writing..

I can relate with you btw about the Se stuff. I am the same. I think it's my only problem with Se types really. But it's also probably a pretty significant one, since that's kind of what they are, and why we wouldn't really get along on a deeper personal level. I think one thing to keep in mind about this stuff is that everyone has base emotions, such as anger, but that the socionics functions represent high-order cognition that is some form of intelligence, rather than lizard brain reactions and feelings. Feeling is probably one of the most misleading terms because anything can be a feeling imo.

I should also add that the notion that those who are more dispassionate about logic are better logicians is frustrating to me. Can't one be passionate about logic and reasoning? Can't one be dispassionate about life and not care about logic at all? And is it usually the one who is passionate about such things that is better or those who simply don't care? I am passionate about life in general, and especially passionate about reason and reasoning, and the theory bothers me...

No, this is true. And a completely dispassionate person probably has not type or is depressed or something. But that's also probably why the functions were thought of as dualities by Carl Jung. Logic types in general are also passionate, but their passion is much more unconsciously driven; i.e. they are consciously less passionate overall, but inadvertently more driven by their passions on a subconscious level, whether they realize it or not. Whereas a feeling type is much more conscious of their passions and others and are much better able to utilize and deal with them, they are also much more subconsciously driven by the logic behind them as well, whether they realize it or not.

The problem Jung tried to show is when we have such strong one-sidedness, say Ti in this case, we become much more subconsciously driven by Fe, but also less receptive to it by others as well. This is one problem with duality, that strong egos will not be receptive to how their dual can help them.

And passion might not be the right word either, but I prefer that descriptor over "feeling" and I think it leaves the potential to expound on the intelligence behind the feeling functions, whereas "feeling" and "morality" seem very vague to me. At least, Fe as an intelligence that can view and manipulate passions, versus Fi that determines what the subject is passionate about and why, makes a lot more sense to me, than saying things are about feelings or morality. I think I said this before, but without feeling you don't really get ideas of what's right and wrong, but then again what's right or wrong depends on context and subjective interpretation/evaluation and doesn't necessarily equate to what's moral. Morality is more of a philosophical notion. Ethics might seem a more apt term for feeling, but I suppose you could divide that into ethics of passion or ethics of logic, so I guess not.

[Nobody]

I wonder if you could put ethics into all the functions, such as...

Ni - ethics of wisdom
Ti - ethics of logic/integrity
Fi - ethics of reciprocity?
Si - ethics of comforts?

Te - ethics of action?
Fe - ethics of influence?
Ne - ethics of possibilities
Se - ethics of chaos?

[Djinn]

I wonder if you could put ethics into all the functions, such as...

Ni - ethics of wisdom
Ti - ethics of logic/integrity
Fi - ethics of reciprocity?
Si - ethics of comforts?

Te - ethics of action?
Fe - ethics of influence?
Ne - ethics of possibilities
Se - ethics of chaos?

I think trying to understand ethics/morals like this is pretty helpful. In my response, I had a go at this but I took it as an opportunity for fun mental exercise guessing IE vocabulary. To my delight, some of what I wrote down is actually considered their corresponding IE’s vocabulary! Yay for me?

What I wrote:
e.g.
Si - equilibrium = good / disequilibrium = bad
Ne - permeable = good / impermeable = bad
Se - impressive = good / unimpressive = bad
Ni - rhythmic = good / arrhythmic = bad
Te - expedient = good / inexpedient = bad
Fi - sentimental = good / unsentimental = bad
Ti - coherent = good / incoherent = bad
Fe - romantic = good / unromantic = bad


I think your take on it is much better than mine, though. It is more “in summa”, I’d say.

[The Reality Denialist]

I think trying to understand ethics/morals like this is pretty helpful. In my response, I had a go at this but I took it as an opportunity for fun mental exercise guessing IE vocabulary. To my delight, some of what I wrote down is actually considered their corresponding IE’s vocabulary! Yay for me?

What I wrote:
e.g.
Si - equilibrium = good / disequilibrium = bad
Ne - permeable = good / impermeable = bad
Se - impressive = good / unimpressive = bad
Ni - rhythmic = good / arrhythmic = bad
Te - expedient = good / inexpedient = bad
Fi - sentimental = good / unsentimental = bad
Ti - coherent = good / incoherent = bad
Fe - romantic = good / unromantic = bad


I think your take on it is much better than mine, though. It is more “in summa”, I’d say.

This certainly gets bit schizophrenic around base/demo.

[Djinn]

This certainly gets bit schizophrenic around base/demo.

Hopefully not derailing too much, but could you explain? I am thoroughly intrigued by what you mean.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I don't like giving to most charities because a lot of the money gets funneled into ENTj/ESTj narc douchebags that just use it for their own benefit while pretending to the masses they are doing some holy good- when it's mostly just pure greed and selfishness. If it was truly 100% selfless for an underprivelged group/person that really needs it- but most of them are about empowering some creepy Illuminati Reptile Demon secret pedo more than they are 'for good.' The goodness is just a guise.

And yeah part of it is- yeah some people do work hard for their money and I don't feel like they should be guit tripped to give it away to others just cause it's the 'right' thing to do. The higher classes and ppl who haven't had to struggle to make money probably feel differently because money has come to them easier so they can more throw it away to charities as some lofty goal. But I don't think you should make the average working class/minimum wage worker feel guilty for not giving because they need that money more for themselves and their own families anyway. Even if it's only a $1 or whatever, it all adds up and now too many places ask you to donate instead of being more passive/chill with it. There's no shame in saying 'no thank you' sometimes. I give when I have it but I'm not going to give it EVERY time ew.

tldr: The Littlest Cancer Patient doesn't really tug on my heart strings when it's polluted with too much Te. I guess that makes me a bad person in a way but whatever.

[Tallmo]

Therefore, this part of the theory has to either be left out or redone.

Would you agree?

I hate to sound like a broken record, but you are too philosophical. Fi is Fi. It is a natural phenomenon. We need words to describe and point at it. "Moral" is not a definition or an exact description of Fi, but it works as a hint and a pointer. If you want a more advanced description then read Jung. In the meantime socionics gives you enough hints that you should be able to identify Fi in real life.

[The Reality Denialist]

Hopefully not derailing too much, but could you explain? I am thoroughly intrigued by what you mean.

For example Ne says keep seeking new avenues and Te says keep working towards the goal. You are soon in the middle of spaghetti you cooked yourself.

[FreelancePoliceman]

Most people have been saying Fi isn’t related to morality, but I see where the OP got his ideas. I’m not sure how best to articulate it: maybe it’s that, whether or not they live up to them, Fi valuers tend to have more rigid ideas about morality than Fe valuers?

[Tarnished]

Morality is complicated

For example: If an Fi valuer see his/her love ones are in dangerous, and the only thing he/she can do to save their's love ones is sacrifice other innocent people. This action could be see is as immoral, but it is something like "I know it's wrong, but I had to do this" in the Fi user's mind. Strong Fi user sometime know what they are doing is wrong (weak Te/ unvalue Ti), but they just can't ignore their feeling.

Another example: An Ti valuer/ or a very strong Te user chooses to sacrifice 100 innocent people to save a million people because he think it is the right thing to do (1 million > 100), and the people those who are save by him agree with his's action. But those person who have their love ones being sacrifice see him as evil...

Anyway, I had never thought about morality when doing something. I thought about the consequence and how it could affected my own goods. It's more realistic thinking that way. "What you want" + "the right method" = "the right thing to do", morality should be as simple as this.

[Rebelondeck]

One should look at type from the back end - as an operating system with no apps on it. One then proposes an environment and asks how would all the types navigate through such an environment. After they've passed through it, even the various Fi-types will have devised different apps. An app may be, for example, morality in the dictionary sense and this app would have likely been tailored as such due to previous environmental influences, more so than type. Unfortunately, most Socionics proponents try to quantify app-loaded systems, which can lead to erroneous descriptions of the operating system that have been based on biased, anecdotal evidence. It can be difficult to separate out the past environmental influences so that one can get a clear picture of type and its actual influences. Consider twins of the same type, one raised in privilege and the other raised in the slums; what are the chances that their concepts of morality would be the same.

a.k.a. I/O

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Morality is complicated - and we all get in the bad habit of simplifying things too much. I think a lot of immoral acts are just genetic, the person doesn't necessarily want to do it but also feels like they can't stop themselves - and the fact that doing bad things does often give people a rush no matter who they are. I mean, the temptation of Sin is that it *does* feel good at first. You are given in completely to the raw shadowy desires of ur right hemisphere or something and it can be intoxicating. "It feels so good because it's so bad." I think the average person can sympathize with serial killers or other deviants in this way even if they don't condone their actions. Because it's a very, very, very extreme version of taking the last cookie out of the cookie jar without asking anybody first if it's okay.

But the flip side to that is that I feel if I did a morally fucked up thing- it would also physically repulse my body too if I ever went through with them 'for real' so that's where my ethics come in, and why I kinda so easily separate a fantasy from reality. ((and also why I don't just easily excuse the evil crap some SLEs males do even though some uppity assholes think otherwise)) The crap a lot of stuff society says is 'wrong'- is wrong for me too, because it makes me feel sick inside physically if I were to ever corporealize them. Not in a hoity toity preaching to others about morals from a podium kind of way as I don't think that really ever works- but transmuting your own shadow and teaching others to do the same. But saying that also kinda naturally assumes or implies that all shadows are inherently bad and must be 'gotten through' and I'm not sure I agree with that either, because shadows can protect and help you too no matter what. (hugs @inumbra) Light can be harsh and abrasive and secretly evil itself, and shadows can be protective/empathetic and forgiving etc. Just another small example of how complicated morality is.