Fi and Moral Nihilism

[ashlesha]

also, its human to have a raw and completely emotionally based value system and i think that ultimately all arguments for or against certain things are based on that gut feeling and that the rationalization comes later. anybody who thinks that their value system is entirely rational and that their views don't originate from base and crude things like personal feelings and gut reactions is lying to themselves. at best, the mind helps modulate and shape our viewpoints after theyre created in that more primitive place.

[Galen]

I see your point and I am not trying to argue, really. I am just telling you how I feel about right and wrong, personally. To me it is just wrong to inflict harm and when it comes to this type of violent act against a creature, I can't get past my emotional reaction. It is just wrong and needs to be prevented (which also means it needs to be understood).

I get that, but what I'm trying to ask is what makes something wrong when we can't even really establish what being "morally wrong" means in the first place?

Don't take me as being needlessly belligerent, I just want to get the discussion going because it's a really interesting subject to me.

[ashlesha]

even when you take the route you did with the consequences for torturing a kitten there are certain moral/visceral/feeling based assumptions. that you will feel guilty. that being estranged from friends or going to jail is "bad." maybe these are perfectly reasonable and obvious assumptions to make, but they still come from a value system. it's unavoidable and it can't be transcended, and ignoring it is simply blocking out a very real part of life. i don't think there is a solution.

[Galen]

even when you take the route you did with the consequences for torturing a kitten there are certain moral/visceral/feeling based assumptions. that you will feel guilty. that being estranged from friends or going to jail is "bad."

I never implicated this part of the equation. Whether or not it's objectively a "bad" thing to break your friendships with people isn't what I'm concerned with. Rather, I'm more trying to gauge the situation by "how will my overall happiness, both long-term and short-term, be affected by these actions? What will my life situation be like if I lose all my friends, or if I have to live with this terrible burden of guilt for several years?" If that's what you want to accomplish for some bizarre sadistic reason, or if those consequences don't matter to you, then that supposed outcome won't be "bad" for you. You will have done what you wanted, and you'd be able to live with the consequences.

I only say that you will probably feel guilty simply out of precedent and personal experiences with death. If you wouldn't feel guilty, then that's just not something to consider in your string of consequences. I assume that most people would feel guilty about torturing a kitten though.

[ashlesha]

you come across someone torturing a kitten and you get an immediate feeling of anger and revulsion but before that feeling travels to your mind and translates into "that's wrong," you check yourself and examine it rationally. is that kind of what you're saying? i can see the merit in that but i've also seen arguments from nambla for example that were perfectly reasonable as far as i can tell but i have no qualms about letting my instincts prevail in overriding them. though i'm sure i could come up with reasonable counter arguments if i really tried. again, it all comes from a primitive place to begin with anyway. the rationalizations afterward might be more objective and communicable but i can't help but feel they're sort of arbitrary.

[Galen]

you come across someone torturing a kitten and you get an immediate feeling of anger and revulsion but before that feeling travels to your mind and translates into "that's wrong," you check yourself and examine it rationally. is that kind of what you're saying? i can see the merit in that but i've also seen arguments from nambla for example that were perfectly reasonable as far as i can tell but i have no qualms about letting my instincts prevail in overriding them. though i'm sure i could come up with reasonable counter arguments if i really tried. again, it all comes from a primitive place to begin with anyway. the rationalizations afterward might be more objective and communicable but i can't help but feel they're sort of arbitrary.

What I'm saying is that translating something into "that's right/wrong" is an inconsequential projection of what already exists as internal sentiment.

Instead I propose when coming to judgments regarding some objectionable act that one turns the focus back onto themselves, where "what you did was wrong" becomes "what you did pissed me off." I imagine to a fair number of people that these two phrases are largely interchangeable, but the difference here is that with the latter you accept the subjectivity of your position since true objectivity cannot ever be known (at least not with the tools we have available).

In a lot of ways you can compare this to E-Prime, a linguistic movement which eliminates all forms of "to be" from its lexicon. In any sort of moral-acceptable philosophy, claiming something to be Right or Wrong creates a definitive declination, an illusory objectivity in a subject that has no observable or measurable definitives. The answer then as I see it is to move the focus back onto the subject creating those claims and accept the subjectivity of all those who attempt to create such concrete statements of good and bad.


So back to the kitten: you come across someone torturing a kitten in broad daylight on a busy street corner. The act catches your eye, you understand what's going on, your brain releases adrenaline, you go "ew shit, I hate that" and you react accordingly. Any other projection like "that's wrong wrong WRONG" only serves to bolster your own pre-existing sentiments via projecting one's own feelings onto the outside world.

[anndelise]

Galen, are you saying that
yes, individuals feel internal control mechanisms that
a) arouse a person (or calms them) (arousal)
and b) results in a positive (or negative) feeling (valence)

that these internal feelings prompt personal action/inaction/consideration...

but you are against treating these internal and personalized control mechanisms as an objective measure and/or universal code?


As to the consequences part,
consequences are how we learn, and how we guide our deliberate actions; moral or otherwise.
In the turtured cat example, potential consequences might be loss of a favored pet, knowledge of feline anatomy, ostrocization from one's society, getting our ass kicked, nights free of cat yowling, imprisonment, burning in hell, empathizing with its physical/psychological pain, or even personal guilt and psychological turmoil.

We grow up learning how to balance our desires with the potential consequences of our actions...
Which in turn further influences our arousal, valence, and rationalizations for action/inaction.

Galen, is this kind of what you were talking about?

[Taknamay]

I think there are several things for which I can explain why they are certainly wrong:

• A lie is wrong because it destroys knowledge, and knowledge is a good thing. You end up with less good than you started with.
• Violence is wrong because it destroys health, and health is a good thing. You end up with less good than you started with.
• Vandalism is wrong because it destroys wealth, and wealth is a good thing. You end up with less good than you started with.

On the other hand, there are things which we seem to assume are totally wrong, but really don't belong in the same category. It's more of a social contract.

• Stealing does not destroy, it only displaces. Often times, stealing is the right thing to do. If a person has a weapon, and if that person is very likely to harm themselves or others with the weapon, then you have a responsibility to take the weapon without consent. The lives of the victims are immeasurably more valuable than the title to the weapon. If you are starving to death, and if a person who does not need so much food is denying you food, then you have a responsibility to take the food without consent. Your own life is immeasurably more valuable than the title to the food. Stealing itself is not the problem, only the motivation for stealing matters, and stealing is far better for society than letting property be abused.
• Trespassing does not destroy, it only occupies. Often times, trespassing is the right thing to do. If a person is not taking good care of a building they own but do not make use of, and allow the building to become ruined, then society has a responsibility to take care of the building even if the owner disagrees. There are so many homeless people, surely somebody can make use of it. Letting the building be destroyed over time is a waste of resources. This is the motivation for "squatting". Likewise, if you going to freeze to death overnight, and a person refuses to allow you to take shelter, then you have a responsibility to deny their wishes and take shelter in their house. Your life is immeasurably more important than the title to the house (and furthermore they regain everything once you leave, making it even more reasonable). You can stay, just don't damage anything.

There are more examples, but these were just the few I could think of. So yes, torturing a kitten is wrong, because it damages the kitten.

[Galen]

Galen, are you saying that
yes, individuals feel internal control mechanisms that
a) arouse a person (or calms them) (arousal)
and b) results in a positive (or negative) feeling (valence)

that these internal feelings prompt personal action/inaction/consideration...

but you are against treating these internal and personalized control mechanisms as an objective measure and/or universal code?

I am against taking these control mechanisms for granted as universal truths, yes. Sure people can and do have very similar shared experiences with which to corroborate a similar human condition, largely based on biological/physiological/cultural/age variables etc. But any sort of code of conduct or morality that's ever been said to be "universal" has always been created by some person or group of people and has never spontaneously arisen without human intervention; at least, as far as I can tell in my infinitely ignorant understanding of the universe.

As to the consequences part,
consequences are how we learn, and how we guide our deliberate actions; moral or otherwise.
In the turtured cat example, potential consequences might be loss of a favored pet, knowledge of feline anatomy, ostrocization from one's society, getting our ass kicked, nights free of cat yowling, imprisonment, burning in hell, empathizing with its physical/psychological pain, or even personal guilt and psychological turmoil.

We grow up learning how to balance our desires with the potential consequences of our actions...
Which in turn further influences our arousal, valence, and rationalizations for action/inaction.

Galen, is this kind of what you were talking about?

You keep using fancier words than me
But yes, that's an erudite and succinct way of phrasing the importance of experience. I have to prefer it infinitely more over any predetermined set of right/wrong rules, because it provides actual observable feedback as to what your actions mean for yourself and others. Some action may have no immediate negative consequences in the long or short term, yet still be deemed as Wrong because some other rule says so despite there being no evidence for it. You can thank Kant for this little connundrum.

[Galen]

I think there are several things for which I can explain why they are certainly wrong:

• A lie is wrong because it destroys knowledge, and knowledge is a good thing. You end up with less good than you started with.
• Violence is wrong because it destroys health, and health is a good thing. You end up with less good than you started with.
• Vandalism is wrong because it destroys wealth, and wealth is a good thing. You end up with less good than you started with.

That's just the problem though: what proof does anybody have of any of these things being "good" in any clinical, scientific, or objective sense? Denoting some things as good and others as not may not be necessarily arbitrary, but there's always some starting base of what's predetermined as good without any reasoning for it to be good, unless it makes reference to some other attribute or phenomenon that's also predetermined to be good. You get caught in this self-contained bubble of what's right/wrong or good/bad that can't connect with any physical reality until someone comes along and draws the line between "Wealth = Good" by hand.

[anndelise]

"Turtured" is not a fancy word.
Erudite and succinct are.

[Galen]

WHAT THE FUCK IS A VALENCE

[anndelise]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion_and_memory
But it's no fancier than saying [some music term I can't think of because I dont know music terms].

[some chair]

These are all perfectly natural reactions that I and most everybody else would follow through with (except for Bystander Effect, Milgram experiments etc., both of which are outside the scope of this discussion). None of this means that the kitten being harmed is an objectively wrong act that can be demonstrated through scientific means with hard evidence and strict testing guidelines.

Using what model? I think this is "ironic science": rather than operating from a position that one's knowledge is a limited quantity, this position seemingly assumes that one's knowledge about suffering is exhaustive.

Let's say you used a utility function, and measured ill effect by levels of stress hormone in the kitten's blood, if pain behaviours aren't sufficiently objective. If you're operating from strictly empirical information like that, you would want to maximise your utility function by minimising pain, discomfort, displeasure; all things measurable by any sentient (in the sense of capable of emotion) organism's chemical state.

But why is it "wrong" to cause pain to self-aware beings? No "evil particle" gets released when things are hurt (probably, but it quantifiably "might" through the alteration of some kind of telepathic or morphogenic field). There's certainly no "logos" that is universal and unchanging that prescribes that we shouldn't cause pain to things...

I think the answer lies in process philosophy. Over time, most societies evolve toward certain moral prescriptions, such as killing, cannibalism, incest, and torture being bad, and generosity and kindness being good. Circumstances and social decay may lead to these prescriptions being compromised with (such as it being worse to starve to death than eat a human corpse; or anomie in cities leading to amoral individuals), or belief systems may arrive at contrary prescriptions before the standard ones (such as ritual eating of brains being honourable), but these are merely processes within a larger process, not hard counterexamples to strict logical deduction about universal laws...

[Galen]

Using what model?

Any model with some modicum of scientific verifiability? Not totally sure what you're referring to here.

I think this is "ironic science": rather than operating from a position that one's knowledge is a limited quantity, this position seemingly assumes that one's knowledge about suffering is exhaustive.

I wasn't asserting or even implying that. There's a shitton of stuff about the universe nobody has any idea about and likely never will. But from what I can gather, any attempts to strictly define an object as pertaining some quality of "good" or "bad" in and of itself simply don't work as there's no way to observe these qualities without some subjective tertiary mechanism. I'd like to see how others have managed this problem though.

Let's say you used a utility function, and measured ill effect by levels of stress hormone in the kitten's blood, if pain behaviours aren't sufficiently objective. If you're operating from strictly empirical information like that, you would want to maximise your utility function by minimising pain, discomfort, displeasure; all things measurable by any sentient (in the sense of capable of emotion) organism's chemical state.

This is all likely true, as maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain seems to be the focal point for many moral systems and philosophies, not to mention being largely desirable things for comfortable survival. It still doesn't cover maximizing pleasure being "right" though, simply that it's desirable.

But why is it "wrong" to cause pain to self-aware beings? No "evil particle" gets released when things are hurt (probably, but it quantifiably "might" through the alteration of some kind of telepathic or morphogenic field). There's certainly no "logos" that is universal and unchanging that prescribes that we shouldn't cause pain to things...

I think the answer lies in process philosophy. Over time, most societies evolve toward certain moral prescriptions, such as killing, cannibalism, incest, and torture being bad, and generosity and kindness being good. Circumstances and social decay may lead to these prescriptions being compromised with (such as it being worse to starve to death than eat a human corpse; or anomie in cities leading to amoral individuals), or belief systems may arrive at contrary prescriptions before the standard ones (such as ritual eating of brains being honourable), but these are merely processes within a larger process, not hard counterexamples to strict logical deduction about universal laws...

This seems largely right I think. Successful societies employ customs and standards that are ultimately beneficial to its survival, and killing one's own tribe members tends to not go over well when you know everybody else in town and they liked the guy you slaughtered. This makes in-group killing super impractical for long-term survival, but not "wrong" per se as, again, right and wrong are not observable entities.

[Olduvai]

<GALEN QUOTE>I get that, but what I'm trying to ask is what makes something wrong when we can't even really establish what being "morally wrong" means in the first place?<GALEN ENDQUOTE>

"Wrong" means "that which one regards with disgust / disdain / disapproval / negative sentiment," "Right" means "that which one regards with approval / acceptance / delight / positive sentiment," and "Moral" means "that which one consistently regards with disgust / disdain / disapproval / negative sentiment or approval / acceptance / delight / positive sentiment." Therefore "Morally Wrong" means "that which one consistently regards with disgust / disdain / disapproval / negative sentiment."

　
<GALEN QUOTE>Instead I propose when coming to judgments regarding some objectionable act that one turns the focus back onto themselves, where "what you did was wrong" becomes "what you did pissed me off."<GALEN ENDQUOTE>

And that's why you're not an IEE. Get out of Delta you fucking greaseball ILE. I know your kind, and I "regard them with disgust." Consistently.
But forealz, all you're really suggesting is a change in the use of language, as "what you did was wrong" means or equals "that which pissed me off," and in this case, "that which pissed me off" means or equals "that which I regard with disgust / disdain / disapproval / negative sentiment." I wonder, though, if "that which pissed me off" means or equals "that which I regard with disgust / disdain / disapproval / negative sentiment" in all cases.
Anwyay, I truly think that you at least value Fe rather than Fi. Look at the evidence: in an online forum dedicated to a Communist Bloc brand of Jungian Case Analysis, you took the time to make a topic wherein, thus far, you've argued for the existence of Moral Relativism not vehemently, but with an undeniable vigor. Furthermore, you suggested that humankind stop using the word "wrong" to name "that which pisses me off". Makes me think of a young, benevolently devious (but devious nevertheless saith the Fi) ILE writing catty ditties that mock his classmates, or creating a pinewood derby car in the shape of a dildo (and still winning), or going to a Halloween party dressed as Superman saying he's me-dressed-as-Superman - basically, using his "Extraverted Intuition" and his "Introverted Logic" to establish himself in the social context - only to get repeatedly flogged by an Fi-valuing moral Inquisitor.
Seriously though, do you realize that "that which pisses me off" means or equals "that which causes me to experience anger," and that "that which causes me to experience anger" means or equals "that which causes me to experience a negative emotion," and that according to a body of theories popularly known as "socionics," "negative emotions" are "consistently regarded with disgust" by a whimsical group of geniuses and socialites called the Alpha Quadra? Do you realize that "Extraverted Feeling" means "external dynamics of fields" and that "Introverted Logic" means "internal statics of fields"? Do you understand that the introverted thinker seeks the extraverted feeler because he sees the field - he sees the relationship between his behavior and peoples' emotional responses - but that he can't predict with certainty what impact his actions will have on others?

[mu4]

I get that, but what I'm trying to ask is what makes something wrong when we can't even really establish what being "morally wrong" means in the first place?

"Wrong" means "that which one regards with disgust / disdain / disapproval / negative sentiment," "Right" means "that which one regards with approval / acceptance / delight / positive sentiment," and "Moral" means "that which one consistently regards with disgust / disdain / disapproval / negative sentiment or approval / acceptance / delight / positive sentiment." Therefore "Morally Wrong" means "that which one consistently regards with disgust / disdain / disapproval / negative sentiment."

　

Instead I propose when coming to judgments regarding some objectionable act that one turns the focus back onto themselves, where "what you did was wrong" becomes "what you did pissed me off."

And that's why you're not an IEE. Get out of Delta you fucking greaseball ILE. I know your kind, and I "regard them with disgust." Consistently.
But forealz, all you're really suggesting is a change in the use of language, as "what you did was wrong" means or equals "that which pissed me off," and in this case, "that which pissed me off" means or equals "that which I regard with disgust / disdain / disapproval / negative sentiment." I wonder, though, if "that which pissed me off" means or equals "that which I regard with disgust / disdain / disapproval / negative sentiment" in all cases.
Anwyay, I truly think that you at least value Fe rather than Fi. Look at the evidence: in an online forum dedicated to a Communist Bloc brand of Jungian Case Analysis, you took the time to make a topic wherein, thus far, you've argued for the existence of Moral Relativism not vehemently, but with an undeniable vigor. Furthermore, you suggested that humankind stop using the word "wrong" to name "that which pisses me off". Makes me think of a young, benevolently devious (but devious nevertheless saith the Fi) ILE writing catty ditties that mock his classmates, or creating a pinewood derby car in the shape of a dildo (and still winning), or going to a Halloween party dressed as Superman saying he's me-dressed-as-Superman - basically, using his "Extraverted Intuition" and his "Introverted Logic" to establish himself in the social context - only to get repeatedly flogged by an Fi-valuing moral Inquisitor.
Seriously though, do you realize that "that which pisses me off" means or equals "that which causes me to experience anger," and that "that which causes me to experience anger" means or equals "that which causes me to experience a negative emotion," and that according to a body of theories popularly known as "socionics," "negative emotions" are "consistently regarded with disgust" by a whimsical group of geniuses and socialites called the Alpha Quadra? Do you realize that "Extraverted Feeling" means "external dynamics of fields" and that "Introverted Logic" means "internal statics of fields"? Do you understand that the introverted thinker seeks the extraverted feeler because he sees the field - he sees the relationship between his behavior and peoples' emotional responses - but that he can't predict with certainty what impact his actions will have on others?

Let's not get into type battle here. There is a large variation in beliefs within types. Moral rejection could easily be a product of rebellion against the status quo in culture instead of analysis on the basis of morality.

Many IEE's are moral relativists and are highly pluralistic, they think everyone should have their beliefs respected and accepted.

[InvisibleJim]

I think its terrible that people are vegetarians, at least animals might be lucky enough to get the opportunity to run away. Your potato has no choice to watch its brothers being ripped from their crib, sliced, diced and boiled. Nature is so brutal.

[nigh]

I just ate so many oysters and they weren't lucky enough to run.

I was like, YEAH YOU STUPID LUMPS SHOULD'VE HAD LEGS AND YOU DON'T! MUAHAHA HOW ABOUT THAT HUH? HUH?

[InvisibleJim]

I just ate so many oysters and they weren't lucky enough to run.

I was like, YEAH YOU STUPID LUMPS SHOULD'VE HAD LEGS AND YOU DON'T! MUAHAHA HOW ABOUT THAT HUH? HUH?

[Reficulris]

I love the emotivist aproach: Something is wrong means "something BOOOOO" and something is right means "something YEEEEEAAAAAAH!". It clears up a lot of noice if you just translate any moral statements to moral sentiments. You can smile knowingly at people and knod, while utterly disagreeing with them.

[Galen]

<GALEN QUOTE><GALEN ENDQUOTE>

lern 2 bbcode

"Wrong" means "that which one regards with disgust / disdain / disapproval / negative sentiment," "Right" means "that which one regards with approval / acceptance / delight / positive sentiment," and "Moral" means "that which one consistently regards with disgust / disdain / disapproval / negative sentiment or approval / acceptance / delight / positive sentiment." Therefore "Morally Wrong" means "that which one consistently regards with disgust / disdain / disapproval / negative sentiment."

This would be a convenient answer if it was actually what most ethics philosophers concluded. Virtue ethics defines it as more a matter of intent and character than action, while deontologists are more orthopraxical with Kant attempting to remove personal reaction and opinion from the matter entirely, and consequentialists who care only for the results of any one action.

And that's why you're not an IEE. Get out of Delta you fucking greaseball ILE. I know your kind, and I "regard them with disgust." Consistently.

every teardrop is a waterfall ;_;

But forealz, all you're really suggesting is a change in the use of language, as "what you did was wrong" means or equals "that which pissed me off," and in this case, "that which pissed me off" means or equals "that which I regard with disgust / disdain / disapproval / negative sentiment." I wonder, though, if "that which pissed me off" means or equals "that which I regard with disgust / disdain / disapproval / negative sentiment" in all cases.

If you had read anything I'd said in this thread you'd know this to be a gross overgeneralization of what I'm actually trying to argue.

Anwyay, I truly think that you at least value Fe rather than Fi. Look at the evidence: in an online forum dedicated to a Communist Bloc brand of Jungian Case Analysis, you took the time to make a topic wherein, thus far, you've argued for the existence of Moral Relativism not vehemently, but with an undeniable vigor.

Moral nihilism is absolutely not the same thing as moral relativism.

Furthermore, you suggested that humankind stop using the word "wrong" to name "that which pisses me off". Makes me think of a young, benevolently devious (but devious nevertheless saith the Fi) ILE writing catty ditties that mock his classmates, or creating a pinewood derby car in the shape of a dildo (and still winning), or going to a Halloween party dressed as Superman saying he's me-dressed-as-Superman - basically, using his "Extraverted Intuition" and his "Introverted Logic" to establish himself in the social context - only to get repeatedly flogged by an Fi-valuing moral Inquisitor.

I'm only using the language as a minor piece of evidence to explain my point, not as an excuse to simply needle-dick over semantics. That would be the Ti way to do things.

Seriously though, do you realize that "that which pisses me off" means or equals "that which causes me to experience anger," and that "that which causes me to experience anger" means or equals "that which causes me to experience a negative emotion," and that according to a body of theories popularly known as "socionics," "negative emotions" are "consistently regarded with disgust" by a whimsical group of geniuses and socialites called the Alpha Quadra? Do you realize that "Extraverted Feeling" means "external dynamics of fields" and that "Introverted Logic" means "internal statics of fields"? Do you understand that the introverted thinker seeks the extraverted feeler because he sees the field - he sees the relationship between his behavior and peoples' emotional responses - but that he can't predict with certainty what impact his actions will have on others?

Do you understand anything you've just said? This entire thread's been to dispel myths about Fi being somehow more moralizing than other types, which you've completely glossed over.

[ashlesha]

Radio @lungs, that's why i said it's "intellectual" which is maybe a dumb way of putting it; you might realize there's an inherent right/wrong but you still retain the ability to dissociate and question whether that right or wrong is necessarily always right or wrong, or at all

lungs oh sure radio.

Radio like you know, necrophilia isn't technically... wrong.

Reficulris errr. no, inherently wrong -> moral absolutism

Radio it's just... gross.

Radio if you know what i mean.

GuavaDrunk oh yeah, and as Relfi said one can have two reactions to something - the gut-level ew AND the 'well that could be this or that and this person would say it's wrong but this person wouldn't care etc' ie: a disconnect between one's own reaction and its application as a judgement.

Galen yeah @ radio

Galen there's nothing in the laws of physics that prevents anybody from fucking a corpse

Galen that doesn't mean you'd particularly like it tho

lungs yeah i can have both reactions. like i can feeeel necrophilia being wrong while thinking about how there's technically maybe no reason for it to be wrong

lungs i guess that seemed too obvious, in that case i agree with it

[ashlesha]

instead of that ability being somehow opposed to Fi, i might actually consider it an important piece of strong Fi. the ability to step back from and evaluate your own emotional reactions and values. to refine them, try to understand where they come from, find ways to better articulate them, etc.

[Absurd]

Lul.

[wacey]

Yeah, I buy it, Galen.

[Galen]

Thanks?

[Absurd]

I don't think you ever heard of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Galen. Kim didn't as well, I take it.

[Olduvai]

lern 2 bbcode

I'm working on it, thanks.

This would be a convenient answer if it was actually what most ethics philosophers concluded. Virtue ethics defines it as more a matter of intent and character than action, while deontologists are more orthopraxical with Kant attempting to remove personal reaction and opinion from the matter entirely, and consequentialists who care only for the results of any one action.

I don't care what ethics philosophers think. We're talking about "right," "wrong," and "morally wrong" in the context of socionics, not virtue ethics or deontology.

every teardrop is a waterfall ;_;

Then cut off the source and just admit you're ILE.

If you had read anything I'd said in this thread you'd know this to be a gross overgeneralization of what I'm actually trying to argue.

O RLY? Then what the fuck are you trying to argue? Because I've got more evidence to support my claim that you're simply suggesting a change in the use of language:

In a lot of ways you can compare this to E-Prime, a linguistic movement which eliminates all forms of "to be" from its lexicon. In any sort of moral-acceptable philosophy, claiming something to be Right or Wrong creates a definitive declination, an illusory objectivity in a subject that has no observable or measurable definitives. The answer then as I see it is to move the focus back onto the subject creating those claims and accept the subjectivity of all those who attempt to create such concrete statements of good and bad.
So back to the kitten: you come across someone torturing a kitten in broad daylight on a busy street corner. The act catches your eye, you understand what's going on, your brain releases adrenaline, you go "ew shit, I hate that" and you react accordingly. Any other projection like "that's wrong wrong WRONG" only serves to bolster your own pre-existing sentiments via projecting one's own feelings onto the outside world.

So it's okay to FEEL the disgust when we consider "that which we regard with disgust," but it's not okay to label "that which we regard with disgust" as "wrong"? Sounds like you're suggesting a change in the use of language.

This is all likely true, as maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain seems to be the focal point for many moral systems and philosophies, not to mention being largely desirable things for comfortable survival. It still doesn't cover maximizing pleasure being "right" though, simply that it's desirable.

"Right" means or equals "that which I regard with approval," and "that which I regard with approval" means or equals "that which is pleasurable / comfortable." YOUR ISSUE IS WITH LANGUAGE, SIR.

Moral nihilism is absolutely not the same thing as moral relativism.

If nothing is inherently "right" or "wrong," then "morals" are relative. If "moral nihilism," then "moral relativism." Besides, you're the one who promised to explain what "moral nihilism" means, but then went on to pontificate about "moral relativism" and "moral absolutism" without mentioning "moral nihilism" once.

I'm only using the language as a minor piece of evidence to explain my point, not as an excuse to simply needle-dick over semantics. That would be the Ti way to do things.

Touché.

Do you understand anything you've just said? This entire thread's been to dispel myths about Fi being somehow more moralizing than other types, which you've completely glossed over.

No, this thread has been you trying to prove that morality doesn't exist because it can't be measured, and I disagree. If you're wondering whether some "thing" is "right" or "wrong," do this: ask people. This kind of relates to what A Grain of a Song of Sand said here:

I think the answer lies in process philosophy. Over time, most societies evolve toward certain moral prescriptions, such as killing, cannibalism, incest, and torture being bad, and generosity and kindness being good. Circumstances and social decay may lead to these prescriptions being compromised with (such as it being worse to starve to death than eat a human corpse; or anomie in cities leading to amoral individuals), or belief systems may arrive at contrary prescriptions before the standard ones (such as ritual eating of brains being honourable), but these are merely processes within a larger process, not hard counterexamples to strict logical deduction about universal laws...

Fact: Fi-valuers exist in society. Fact: Fi-valuers form ethical behavioural standards for themselves and others, just as Ti-valuers form logical behavioural standards for themselves and others. Fact: "Societies" are formed when, for their greater benefit, two or more people bind themselves to a set of rules. "Rules," "laws," or "guidelines," which undergird these "social systems", can either be ethical behavioural standards or logical behavioural standards. Therefore "morality" exists at least inasmuch as "logic" exists, and some "thing" is "moral" if a "good number" of people would agree that it is. Remember: "Ethics" is the science of human-to-human interaction, and can be an understanding of the "external dynamics of fields" or of the "internal statics of objects," while "Logic" is the science of human-to-world interaction, and can be an understanding of the "internal statics of fields" or of the "external dynamics of objects." The point is, THEY'RE EACH A SCIENCE. THEY'RE EQUALLY REAL AND IMPORTANT.

[Absurd]

Trying to measure morality...

... only on Socionics forum.

[nigh]

.

[Absurd]

My Fi is having a FACTgasm

Post pics.

[Galen]

I don't care what ethics philosophers think. We're talking about "right," "wrong," and "morally wrong" in the context of socionics, not virtue ethics or deontology.

uh no, I'm talking about morality in a strictly philosophical sense with the socionics aspect as a secondary argument. You're the one who's getting so caught up in combining these two topics into one and the same.

Then cut off the source and just admit you're ILE.

You're having way too much fun.

O RLY? Then what the fuck are you trying to argue? Because I've got more evidence to support my claim that you're simply suggesting a change in the use of language:

So it's okay to FEEL the disgust when we consider "that which we regard with disgust," but it's not okay to label "that which we regard with disgust" as "wrong"? Sounds like you're suggesting a change in the use of language.

No, I'm proposing a change in philosophical worldview, with those linguistic trickeries you quoted and misinterpreted being a mere consequence of such a paradigm shift.

"Right" means or equals "that which I regard with approval," and "that which I regard with approval" means or equals "that which is pleasurable / comfortable." YOUR ISSUE IS WITH LANGUAGE, SIR.

You're the one who's getting all huffy about language, creating equal signs between superficially similar yet not the same phrases, not me.

If nothing is inherently "right" or "wrong," then "morals" are relative. If "moral nihilism," then "moral relativism."

If nothing is right or wrong, then right and wrong don't exist outside of our own perceptions. The point I've been trying to make is that moral rights and wrongs are not discrete entities in and of themselves, and as such debate over what properties they contain is a meaningless self-inflationary circle jerk.

Besides, you're the one who promised to explain what "moral nihilism" means, but then went on to pontificate about "moral relativism" and "moral absolutism" without mentioning "moral nihilism" once.

Except for that part where I totally did.

No, this thread has been you trying to prove that morality doesn't exist because it can't be measured, and I disagree. If you're wondering whether some "thing" is "right" or "wrong," do this: ask people.

And what does that achieve, other than confirm pre-existing precedent about what other people think on the matter? Are you proposing that right and wrong are determined by majority opinion? Since when has that ever been a solid basis for properness of action on any basis?

Fact: Fi-valuers exist in society.

Maybe. Calling anything a definitive fact doesn't really help your argument though (See also: The Half-Life of Facts).

Fact: Fi-valuers form ethical behavioural standards for themselves and others, just as Ti-valuers form logical behavioural standards for themselves and others.

No.

Fact: "Societies" are formed when, for their greater benefit, two or more people bind themselves to a set of rules.

I don't recall signing any documents or making pledges of allegiance to anybody when I join a group of friends. Your conception of society and the importance of strict rule construction seems way overblown when looking at how people (and other social species I suppose) actually interact with each other naturally.

"Rules," "laws," or "guidelines," which undergird these "social systems", can either be ethical behavioural standards or logical behavioural standards. Therefore "morality" exists at least inasmuch as "logic" exists, and some "thing" is "moral" if a "good number" of people would agree that it is.

So then morality is determined by majority vote, although all your use of scare quotes doesn't give much confidence to your argument. Let me know how those anti-miscegenation laws are working out for you.

Remember: "Ethics" is the science of human-to-human interaction

Ethics, also known as moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct.[1] Doesn't explicitly mention anything about interpersonal interactions.

and can be an understanding of the "external dynamics of fields" or of the "internal statics of objects," while "Logic" is the science of human-to-world interaction, and can be an understanding of the "internal statics of fields" or of the "external dynamics of objects."

No. You have your socionics terminologies way the fuck mixed up anyway. You're calling Ethics Ne/Si related and Logic Fi/Te related. Go home, you're drunk.

The point is, THEY'RE EACH A SCIENCE. THEY'RE EQUALLY REAL AND IMPORTANT.

You seem to be getting awfully defensive about the matter. What's wrong? Am I treading on some pre-established belief system that you've prescribed for yourself?

[Olduvai]

uh no, I'm talking about morality in a strictly philosophical sense with the socionics aspect as a secondary argument. You're the one who's getting so caught up in combining these two topics into one and the same.

Bro, we're having this discussion in the "General Discussion" subsection of the "Socionics Discussion" section of the 16types.info forum. Pretty sure we're talking primarily about "socionics."

You're having way too much fun.

You make me smile.

No, I'm proposing a change in philosophical worldview, with those linguistic trickeries you quoted and misinterpreted being a mere consequence of such a paradigm shift.

I disagree, and instead propose that you've merely become aware of what "wrong" means. Keep those Silicon Valley-era buzzwords coming!

You're the one who's getting all huffy about language, creating equal signs between superficially similar yet not the same phrases, not me.

Get back on base! You're too slow!

If nothing is right or wrong, then right and wrong don't exist outside of our own perceptions. The point I've been trying to make is that moral rights and wrongs are not discrete entities in and of themselves, and as such debate over what properties they contain is a meaningless self-inflationary circle jerk.

But you're still admitting that right and wrong exist when you concede that right and wrong still exist in our perception, and that contradicts the premise that nothing is right or wrong. If nothing was right or wrong, right or wrong wouldn't even exist in our own perception. "Right" and "wrong" exist as "concepts," and those "concepts" are "that which one regards with approval / acceptance / delight / positive sentiment" and "that which one regards with disgust / disdain / disapproval / negative sentiment," respectively.

Except for that part where I totally did.

You explained what "moral absolutism" and "moral relativism" were.

And what does that achieve, other than confirm pre-existing precedent about what other people think on the matter? Are you proposing that right and wrong are determined by majority opinion? Since when has that ever been a solid basis for properness of action on any basis?

It appears the jury is still out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_rule

Care to add a thesis to the discussion?

Maybe. Calling anything a definitive fact doesn't really help your argument though (See also: The Half-Life of Facts).

Again, we're talking about socionics here. I thought we were assuming the existence of these things.

No.

Aye.

I don't recall signing any documents or making pledges of allegiance to anybody when I join a group of friends. Your conception of society and the importance of strict rule construction seems way overblown when looking at how people (and other social species I suppose) actually interact with each other naturally.

Stop being deliberately dense. If someone repeatedly mistreated you, would you nevertheless be their friend? If the answer is "no," then we have a rule!


[QUOTE=Galen;978692]So then morality is determined by majority vote, although all your use of scare quotes doesn't give much confidence to your argument. Let me know how those anti-miscegenation laws are working out for you.[/QUOTES]

BIG WORDS FOR POWER!

Ethics, also known as moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct.[1] Doesn't explicitly mention anything about interpersonal interactions.

I was speaking in a "nuanced manner". Again, your problem is with language.

No. You have your socionics terminologies way the fuck mixed up anyway. You're calling Ethics Ne/Si related and Logic Fi/Te related. Go home, you're drunk.

I'm just buzzed, I promise. I have my own definitions for the functions that I think make more sense and, at the very least, are more consistent than the ones I've come across, while still working just as well.

You seem to be getting awfully defensive about the matter. What's wrong? Am I treading on some pre-established belief system that you've prescribed for yourself?

No, I was just capitalizing for emphasis. Don't be so vain.

[Galen]

Bro, we're having this discussion in the "General Discussion" subsection of the "Socionics Discussion" section of the 16types.info forum. Pretty sure we're talking primarily about "socionics."

Nope, a good majority of my arguments pertaining to morality or lack thereof have not had anything to do with socionics. Your contextualizations of my arguments have been vastly misattributed.

I disagree, and instead propose that you've merely become aware of what "wrong" means.

Now you're just projecting false intentions.

Keep those Silicon Valley-era buzzwords coming!

i don't even know what

Get back on base! You're too slow!

???????

But you're still admitting that right and wrong exist when you concede that right and wrong still exist in our perception, and that contradicts the premise that nothing is right or wrong. If nothing was right or wrong, right or wrong wouldn't even exist in our own perception. "Right" and "wrong" exist as "concepts," and those "concepts" are "that which one regards with approval / acceptance / delight / positive sentiment" and "that which one regards with disgust / disdain / disapproval / negative sentiment," respectively.

That's like saying twelve-tentacled Mandarin-speaking German Shepherds exist because people can conceptualize them. Sure, you can think about it and ponder the ramifications of its existence, but you gain no real-world value out of it other than a weird story to tell your friends. It's like arguing that numbers or Euclidian geometric figures exist in any strictly physical or objective sense.

You explained what "moral absolutism" and "moral relativism" were.

"At this point, I find myself rather disinterested in debating whether or not something is morally correct because the means by which people attempt to gauge morality depend on what method they use to interpret it rather than the physically observable consequences of the thing itself. The reason for this, I contend, is that right and wrong do not exist in any sense other than linguistic practicality. Any interpretations of right and wrong I automatically translate as "I like" and "I dislike," because to my ear that's all they're saying. Without some sort of physical display of what good or bad looks like, all that can be said about the matter lives in the projections that people create in its place. Basically my understanding of other people's ethical reactions falls mostly under what @Taknamay posted about Emotivism."

It appears the jury is still out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_rule

Care to add a thesis to the discussion?

On whether or not correctness/incorrectness of action can be solely determined by popular vote? Surely we know better by now.

Stop being deliberately dense. If someone repeatedly mistreated you, would you nevertheless be their friend? If the answer is "no," then we have a rule!

And what if I answered yes?

BIG WORDS FOR POWER!

So then you do agree that morality is determined by the majority?

I was speaking in a "nuanced manner". Again, your problem is with language.

Then stop writing with all these fucking scare quotes and tell me what you actually mean to say.

[Olduvai]

Nope, a good majority of my arguments pertaining to morality or lack thereof have not had anything to do with socionics. Your contextualizations of my arguments have been vastly misattributed.

Then perhaps this topic best belongs in the "Philosophy, Politics, and Economics" subforum. It's in the "Miscellaneous" section.

Now you're just projecting false intentions.

You're just projecting false intentions of projections of false intentions. By the way, what does "projecting false intentions" even mean?

i don't even know what

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift#Marketing

That's like saying twelve-tentacled Mandarin-speaking German Shepherds exist because people can conceptualize them. Sure, you can think about it and ponder the ramifications of its existence, but you gain no real-world value out of it other than a weird story to tell your friends. It's like arguing that numbers or Euclidian geometric figures exist in any strictly physical or objective sense.

Not so, as twelve-tentacled Mandarin-speaking German shepherds exist only in our "conception." Contrast that with "right" and "wrong," which Fi-valuers apparently perceive "naturally" in the form of "feelings." Contrast "feelings," which are static, with "emotions," which are dynamic, but remember that both "feelings" and "emotions" are "felt" by a "feeler" and therefore exist both in our "conception" and in our "perception." Therefore "right" and "wrong" exist, if only in a sense.

"At this point, I find myself rather disinterested in debating whether or not something is morally correct because the means by which people attempt to gauge morality depend on what method they use to interpret it rather than the physically observable consequences of the thing itself. The reason for this, I contend, is that right and wrong do not exist in any sense other than linguistic practicality. Any interpretations of right and wrong I automatically translate as "I like" and "I dislike," because to my ear that's all they're saying. Without some sort of physical display of what good or bad looks like, all that can be said about the matter lives in the projections that people create in its place. Basically my understanding of other people's ethical reactions falls mostly under what @Taknamay posted about Emotivism."

You explained what "moral absolutism" and "moral relativism" were and then gave your opinion on ethics like you're some philosopher.

On whether or not correctness/incorrectness of action can be solely determined by popular vote? Surely we know better by now.

Hi, I'm Johannes Bloem. Is this a socionics forum?

And what if I answered yes?

I would question your logic

So then you do agree that morality is determined by the majority?

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

[Olduvai]

Not so, as twelve-tentacled Mandarin-speaking German shepherds exist only in our "conception." Contrast that with "right" and "wrong," which Fi-valuers apparently perceive "naturally" in the form of "feelings." Contrast "feelings," which are static, with "emotions," which are dynamic, but remember that both "feelings" and "emotions" are "felt" by a "feeler" and therefore exist both in our "conception" and in our "perception." Therefore "right" and "wrong" exist, if only in a sense.

I don't believe in editing posts, so here's a follow up as I wanted to clarify. "Right" and "wrong" exist as entities outside of our mere "conception." They are "perceived" by Fi-valuers as "feelings" of "esteem" or "disgust." "Right" therefore means "that which one regards with esteem," while "wrong" means "that which one regards with disgust."

[Galen]

Then perhaps this topic best belongs in the "Philosophy, Politics, and Economics" subforum. It's in the "Miscellaneous" section.

I am oh so well aware of where shit is located. See Also: my post count.

You're just projecting false intentions of projections of false intentions. By the way, what does "projecting false intentions" even mean?

Poor choice of words on my part, I choose to concede this point and move on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift#Marketing

Great.

Not so, as twelve-tentacled Mandarin-speaking German shepherds exist only in our "conception."

buhhhh

Contrast that with "right" and "wrong," which Fi-valuers apparently perceive "naturally" in the form of "feelings."

As an Fi-valuer I do not "feel" such "feelings" of "right" and "wrong" "naturally." I "feel" strong "attachments" toward "like" and "dislike," "pursue" and "avoid," "beneficial to my overall well-being" and "not," but "right" and "wrong" never "cross" my "psychological" "purview."

Contrast "feelings," which are static, with "emotions,"

okay fucking stop that. I'm editing out all of your scare quotes manually because reading them every time infuriates me to no end.

Contrast feelings, which are static, with emotions, which are dynamic, but remember that both feelings and emotions are felt by a feeler and therefore exist both in our conception and in our perception. Therefore right and wrong exist, if only in a sense.

You've just thrown a hodge-podge of socionics-sounding garbage into a blender and awkwardly concluded that people feel feelings. I could feel what I interpret as the presence of God hovering over my shoulder, but that doesn't mean God exists.

See also: buhhhh

You explained what moral absolutism and moral relativism were and then gave your opinion on ethics like you're some philosopher.

Jesus shit, are you blind? The bolded part is about as close a depiction of what moral nihilism is as I've ever said. Or you can let 6 seconds of google tell you:

Moral nihilism (also known as ethical nihilism) is the meta-ethical view that nothing is intrinsically moral or immoral. For example, a moral nihilist would say that killing someone, for whatever reason, is neither inherently right nor inherently wrong. Moral nihilists consider morality to be constructed, a complex set of rules and recommendations that may give a psychological, social, or economical advantage to its adherents, but is otherwise without universal or even relative truth in any sense.

And what's wrong with being a philosopher?

I would question your logic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

Hi, I'm Johannes Bloem. Is this a socionics forum?

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

I'm taking these both as tacit cop-out answers in place of "yes, morality is determined by majority rule." You may rebut this if you want.

I don't believe in editing posts, so here's a follow up as I wanted to clarify. "Right" and "wrong" exist as entities outside of our mere "conception." They are "perceived" by Fi-valuers as "feelings" of "esteem" or "disgust."

Which I have been disagreeing with this entire time. Even if right and wrong do exist as objective entities, we have no means of measuring them as such outside of what "feelings" we as humans may possess. Saying that you merely feel something to be right or wrong proves nothing, as there can be many different internally-generated stimuli for producing such a feeling within someone.

[Olduvai]

I am oh so well aware of where shit is located. See Also: my post count.

Yet you never had the good sense to post this topic in the proper forum. People are strange.

---

As an Fi-valuer I do not "feel" such "feelings" of "right" and "wrong" "naturally." I "feel" strong "attachments" toward "like" and "dislike," "pursue" and "avoid," "beneficial to my overall well-being" and "not," but "right" and "wrong" never "cross" my "psychological" "purview."

That's because you don't value Fi. Seriously.

---

okay fucking stop that. I'm editing out all of your scare quotes manually because reading them every time infuriates me to no end.

Hahaha, speak for yourself:

As an Fi-valuer I do not "feel" such "feelings" of "right" and "wrong" "naturally." I "feel" strong "attachments" toward "like" and "dislike," "pursue" and "avoid," "beneficial to my overall well-being" and "not," but "right" and "wrong" never "cross" my "psychological" "purview."

---

You've just thrown a hodge-podge of socionics-sounding garbage into a blender and awkwardly concluded that people feel feelings. I could feel what I interpret as the presence of God hovering over my shoulder, but that doesn't mean God exists.

If that were true, then God would exist in the same sense as "right" and "wrong" do. In fact, I once heard a churchgoing Fe-valuer say that she "felt the presence of God" every time she went to church. It might be said that she simply perceived the "atmosphere" (imagine it: pews full of people, all singing praises) and then attributed that "feeling" to God.
Also:
Extraverted Feeling = Dynamic = Emotions
Introverted Feeling = Static = Feelings

---

Jesus shit, are you blind? The bolded part is about as close a depiction of what moral nihilism is as I've ever said. Or you can let 6 seconds of google tell you:

Moral nihilism (also known as ethical nihilism) is the meta-ethical view that nothing is intrinsically moral or immoral. For example, a moral nihilist would say that killing someone, for whatever reason, is neither inherently right nor inherently wrong. Moral nihilists consider morality to be constructed, a complex set of rules and recommendations that may give a psychological, social, or economical advantage to its adherents, but is otherwise without universal or even relative truth in any sense.

And what's wrong with being a philosopher?

You gave your opinoin, bro:

At this point, I find myself rather disinterested in debating whether or not something is morally correct because the means by which people attempt to gauge morality depend on what method they use to interpret it rather than the physically observable consequences of the thing itself. The reason for this, I contend, is that right and wrong do not exist in any sense other than linguistic practicality.

Honestly, I'm starting to think I'm the one treading on a pre-existing a set of beliefs.

---

I'm taking these both as tacit cop-out answers in place of "yes, morality is determined by majority rule." You may rebut this if you want.

I'm not here to discuss morality in a political sense. I'm here to talk about socionics.

---

Which I have been disagreeing with this entire time. Even if right and wrong do exist as objective entities, we have no means of measuring them as such outside of what "feelings" we as humans may possess. Saying that you merely feel something to be right or wrong proves nothing, as there can be many different internally-generated stimuli for producing such a feeling within someone.

Ask people. More specifically, ask an Fi-valuer. Te-types exist to help us be more efficient, Ti-types exist to help us be more consistent, Fe-types exist to help us not kill the vibe, and Fi-types exist to help us know the difference between "right" and "wrong." It's all about social cohesion.

[Galen]

Yet you never had the good sense to post this topic in the proper forum. People are strange.

It's not my fault you can't glean the context of a conversation by reading it verbatim.

That's because you don't value Fi. Seriously.

no u

Hahaha, speak for yourself:

It's parody, dimwit.

If that were true, then God would exist in the same sense as "right" and "wrong" do.

In that they don't exist, cool.

Also:
Extraverted Feeling = Dynamic = Emotions
Introverted Feeling = Static = Feelings

Irrelevant to this conversation and gross overgeneralization of already highly generalized words.

You gave your opinoin, bro:

And in doing so provided a definition, as framed from the perspective of a person who holds such a meta-ethical perspective.

Honestly, I'm starting to think I'm the one treading on a pre-existing a set of beliefs.

No, you're just being a Ti-infected moron, misplacing contexts and reframing arguments so that they work in your bonkers little system.

I'm not here to discuss morality in a political sense. I'm here to talk about socionics.

Then don't manipulate contexts to fit your needs.

Ask people. More specifically, ask an Fi-valuer.

Don't need to because I am one uhuhu