How the ethical functions work and their relationship with logical functions

**rat200Turbo** · 06-10-2017, 06:51 PM

This post may be somewhat disjointed. The purpose is to explain that ethical functions are rational functions connected with the logical functions. Everything I say here will be taken from basic ethics philosophy and model A.
On this forum I see alot of people, when asked about themselves, responding with "I'm very logical". What they're trying to say is "I'm very rational", which is not the same thing. Infact they often hold very strong assumptions (such as an unyielding faith in socionics). I've also seen people (such as Myst recently) assert (blindly) that ethical and logical functions "pertain to very separate, qualitatively distinct information domains". This is wrong and a clueless comment, the functions deal with the same information: moral claims break down into reasoning, and reasoning crystallizes into assumptions... all the time. These are functions we're discussing - they differ in what they do with the information, not in the type of information they deal with. Infact the same piece of information can be a conclusion and an assumption. They (the logical and ethical functions) deal with the same information at the same time. I will explain.

-----------------------

There is something called moral rationalism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rationalism
This shows how a moral truth is known fundamentally, before reasoning. A moral truth is 'stored' information; information which is packed and can be unpacked.

Logical reasoning amounts to a conclusion. The conclusion becomes an axiomatic presupposition. The axiomatic presupposition breaks down into the original reasoning that justifies it, and has some limited moral authority (justified by the reasoning). This is the process of packing and unpacking a moral claim. It is a completely rational process.

Moral rational vs. logical rational, what is the difference?
Moral rationals are axiomatic presuppositions, logical rationals are reasoning leading to conclusions (that is just basic ethics philosophy)

The moral functions also engage in their own reasoning process by sorting through axiomatic presuppositions:
Reasoning is often a chain of conclusions. One conclusion is dependent on another conclusion (acting as an assumption). Some assumptions are deeper than others. What is the more fundamental assumption? Which assumptions support or invalidate other assumptions? Moral reasoning sorts through this, to prune and maintain a sound structure rooted in the base assumptions. Ok

So both functions deal with information rationally and sort through it, though moral functions reason in a reverse manner that deals with the axioms themselves.
What does this look like from a practical standpoint?

Every time you engage in dialogue (let's say rational argument) you are busy examining your assumptions. You have to constantly be reasoning for the more fundamental assumptions. The conclusions you reach become new assumptions. The points that you make are based on your critique of assumptions or a justification of your own assumptions. You can't have your assumptions invalidated, because this invalidates all your reasoning built onto your assumptions.

Information that is one moment a conclusion reached through a logical chain of reasoning... the next moment is a moral axiom supported by a justification.

All of the above is basically how the ethical functions work in combination with the logical functions in socionics. To say they are "very separate, distinct domains" is to completely not understand them, they're extremely connected. One moment a claim can be logical, the next the exact piece of information can be used from an ethical standpoint.

---------------------------
Alot of people on this forum pride themselves on being extremely logical but not having much in the way of feelings. Frankly, I find this attitude annoying because it misinterprets what the ethical functions are. I think you are trying to say that you're rational (and I could criticize that too because you haven't understood the irrational functions, but that aside)
You should not adopt socionics as an identity, but besides that...
When someone has weak moral faculties but strong reasoning faculties, this is what it looks like:
The person looks like a "rat in a box" (no allusion to myself). They cannot step outside of their assumptions, they get caught up in their logic leading to a conclusion. The conclusion is irrelevant because it doesn't fit into a larger moral framework or have any significant meaning within the framework of assumptions. Basically reasoning without any meaning or point. It's really not that intelligent honestly, rationally speaking, to not understand axioms or to miss the point.

I hope we now understand that ethical functions are rational and very tied with the logical functions, and deal with the same information.

**Myst** · 06-10-2017, 10:56 PM

Originally Posted by crazedrat1776

On this forum I see alot of people, when asked about themselves, responding with "I'm very logical". What they're trying to say is "I'm very rational", which is not the same thing. Infact they often hold very strong assumptions (such as an unyielding faith in socionics).

The word "logical" has a few different meanings. The Socionics term of Logic is not the same as street smarts logic for one. The Socionics term is simply about the factual, quantitative, distinctly definable aspect of evaluation. Then the (Jungian and) Socionics term Rationality encompasses both Logic and Ethics. This should all be basic knowledge about the theory.

I've also seen people (such as Myst recently) assert (blindly) that ethical and logical functions "pertain to very separate, qualitatively distinct information domains". This is wrong and a clueless comment, the functions deal with the same information: moral claims break down into reasoning, and reasoning crystallizes into assumptions... all the time. These are functions we're discussing - they differ in what they do with the information, not in the type of information they deal with. Infact the same piece of information can be a conclusion and an assumption. They (the logical and ethical functions) deal with the same information at the same time. I will explain.

Ethics and Logic are two different information types but I never claimed that they do not work together, I don't know what it was that you misunderstood.

I find Damasio's research very good on this issue as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somatic_marker_hypothesis

So it isn't just Socionics that talks about these two evaluation systems working together.

**rat200Turbo** · 06-10-2017, 11:17 PM

Typical of you to quote the introduction and leave out the whole point...

Originally Posted by Myst

The word "logical" has a few different meanings. The Socionics term of Logic is not the same as street smarts logic for one. The Socionics term is simply about the factual, quantitative, distinctly definable aspect of evaluation.

Worthless babble... this is supposed to mean something? "Socionics data is, like.. facty. It's much different from the logic on the streets". Thank you I'm learning so much from you. Except no... no, it isn't. Next

Originally Posted by Myst

Then the (Jungian and) Socionics term Rationality encompasses both Logic and Ethics. This should all be basic knowledge about the theory.

You don't even know what the word 'rational' means, do you? Morality is rational. Not Jungian morality, all morality. Again, read and learn what "moral rationalism" is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rationalism
Jung understood this. This is why he calls the ethical function a 'rational function'. Jung may have been insane but he wasn't stupid, he understood the basics of ethical philosophy.

Originally Posted by Myst

Ethics and Logic are two different information types but I never claimed that they do not work together, I don't know what it was that you misunderstood.

No, they're not. As I just explained. Often times a piece of information which is a logical conclusion then is used as an axiomatic presupposition and takes on a moral role... again as I just explained.
The functions do not deal with different types of information. They do different things with the information. They use the information differently. Ok? The information is the same. Functions are not information, functions are an operation. This is why we have named these things "functions", they're operational. Ok?

Originally Posted by Myst

I find Damasio's research very good on this issue as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somatic_marker_hypothesis
So it isn't just Socionics that talks about these two evaluation systems working together.

That's consistent with everything I have just said.. it isn't even relevant, implies nothing, does not support your point whatsoever... next

**niffer** · 06-10-2017, 11:46 PM

What on earth?

You're claiming that logical and ethical information elements deal with the same information from the same domain and that they always have to be related to each other, which is ludicrous.

When someone has weak moral faculties but strong reasoning faculties, this is what it looks like:
The person looks like a "rat in a box" (no allusion to myself). They cannot step outside of their assumptions, they get caught up in their logic leading to a conclusion. The conclusion is irrelevant because it doesn't fit into a larger moral framework or have any significant meaning within the framework of assumptions. Basically reasoning without any meaning or point.

Decide on how to sort something unrelated to people into a hierarchy or do some math. The conclusion is not necessarily going to be irrelevant simply because there's an absent ethical element, and you certainly don't need ethical elements to perform these operations.

Yes ethical and logical IEs can still "work together" because everyone uses and has both as they reason, but that doesn't support anything towards the point you're trying to make.

**Myst** · 06-10-2017, 11:55 PM

Originally Posted by crazedrat1776

Typical of you to quote the introduction and leave out the whole point...

Worthless babble... this is supposed to mean something? "Socionics data is, like.. facty. It's much different from the logic on the streets". Thank you I'm learning so much from you. Except no... no, it isn't. Next

If what you put inside the quot. marks is all you actually read from that part of my post, then you have some issue with reading comprehension. Maybe that'll explain why we have not been on the same page.

You don't even know what the word 'rational' means, do you? Morality is rational. Not Jungian morality, all morality. Again, read and learn what "moral rationalism" is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rationalism
Jung understood this. This is why he calls the ethical function a 'rational function'. Jung may have been insane but he wasn't stupid, he understood the basics of ethical philosophy.

More reading comprehension issues.

No, they're not. As I just explained. Often times a piece of information which is a logical conclusion then is used as an axiomatic presupposition and takes on a moral role... again as I just explained.
The functions do not deal with different types of information. They do different things with the information. They use the information differently. Ok? The information is the same. Functions are not information, functions are an operation. This is why we have named these things "functions", they're operational. Ok?

If you don't even know what it means to have different information types in Socionics, I think it's best if I don't discuss further on Socionics with you.

That's consistent with everything I have just said.. it isn't even relevant, implies nothing, does not support your point whatsoever... next

You don't even know what my point is.

OK, I think we better not talk to each other even about Socionics. If you again claim something about me/about what I said, if it doesn't match the facts I will correct it, otherwise I won't bother engaging with you. Have a nice day!

**Bertrand** · 06-11-2017, 12:09 AM

I agree that, in general, claims of all kinds can be interpreted as conclusions or assumptions--and most people fail to see how they are fundamentally bound together. But it will get you almost nowhere since anything other than linear casual determinist arguments tend to be lost on most people; but moreso than that, I believe almost anything can be established within that framework and that backing off and going after the assumptions is generally irresponsible when dealing with all but the most cutting edge problems. people that when asked to clean their room answer with something like "implying my room is real, or that we're not all going to die anyway" need to approach things from the other end, and only when they can do that can they begin to understand when its appropriate to tackle problems from the other side. I believe this is the difference between real philosophy and stoner philosophy in general

**rat200Turbo** · 06-11-2017, 12:42 AM

@Bertrand: Assumptions exist in many layers. They are in everything you think, say, do, etc.. Each sentence, in a series of reasoning, follows based on that which has been established. Thus it's often the case when you are critiquing reasoning you are questioning some level of assumption, and maybe not the deepest level. The deeper you go the more significant the criticism is, because it reaches a level which underlies all the reasoning built onto it. But this does not always have to be the case. Conclusions built on top of the foundational assumptions are shallow assumptions and contain a soft ethic, they establish a framework for some but not all future statements.
So this happens at many levels.

**rat200Turbo** · 06-13-2017, 07:30 PM