how easily "persuaded" I am.

One cure, which I advise of many, is to not say "yay" or "nay" until you really understand the topic well yourself, have done your own examination of it, etc.

Also, morals should be only loosely linked with the feeling function. Remember we can rationalize feelings totally unrelated to morals, for instance the feelings between two people could be rationalized by each other without much reference to a moral code. Judging the appropriateness of a moral code could involve a feeling function, but consider many thinking types would be pretty apathetic to the feeling component of morality.

One could conceivably establish a moral code primarily based on Te, for instance, the objective functioning and efficiency of a system (yes, even a collection of people can be viewed from the eyes of some users as a "Te system" as per my ponderings -- the feeling content doesn't have to be addressed very much if it's diminished in the eyes of the user). Checking for its efficiency, functionality, and adherence to certain laws, for instance perhaps religious laws, with minimal addressing of how all this relates to how much something is worth, how it makes people feel, etc, is one simplistic example (but I wouldn't say unrealistic!) of where you'd need very little feeling reasoning to establish your code.

Some of the behaviors you've written of could be linked to stereotypical Enneagram 9 things (although I say stereotypical because enneagram is not meant to directly be behavioral at all). And as it happens, E9 has been linked to Fi by at least one well known piece of writing.
(note: all this relates to what piece of any given writing about Fe or Fi one chooses to emphasize)

To decide whether you do tend to Fe or Fi primarily, consider how you tend to engage feeling reasoning primarily. This will depend a lot on where you see F at large among T, N, S, F -- i.e. what functions you certainly prefer F to. For instance, typically an "INTJ" Fi is not nearly the same as an ENFP's, but there are some who identify a lot with Ni-Fi and Fi can be as strong an influence on them as Te. Probably this increases with introversion, when they're really in touch with how Fi is driving their Te perspective and how it interacts with their will.

If you're an FJ, your primary orientation to the outer world, the thing you remember pretty much forever that brought objective content that really shaped you, is going to be Fe. If you're an FP, it's going to be a perceiving function. I've written some posts on how the J v P dichotomy can influence seeing an auxiliary in introverts/extroverts based on my own thoughts.

One concern of Je though, for now, is that there be an objective standard of comparison to judge the validity of the decisions. Ji is a lot more loose, and takes place in the realm of subjective processing of content, so it's pretty removed from all this. On a practical level, this often essentially results in it being harder to "reach" the Fi-er's F judgments as an outsider. With INTJ's this often manifests as just a baby Fi, which doesn't make a huge show, and appears as mostly a backdrop to Te, and is unreachable precisely because what they value meeting an objective standard for is T, not F.

 

One could conceivably establish a moral code primarily based on Te, for instance, the objective functioning and efficiency of a system (yes, even a collection of people can be viewed from the eyes of some users as a "Te system" as per my ponderings -- the feeling content doesn't have to be addressed very much if it's diminished in the eyes of the user). Checking for its efficiency, functionality, and adherence to certain laws, for instance perhaps religious laws, with minimal addressing of how all this relates to how much something is worth, how it makes people feel, etc, is one simplistic example (but I wouldn't say unrealistic!) of where you'd need very little feeling reasoning to establish your code.

Aye. My ESTJ father is excessively moralistic and tends to get overly concerned with pushing the "right" way on us past the point of empathy or common respect/decency. He sees it as expressing his care for us while missing that he's completely trampling our feelings (and rights as autonomous beings who don't have to agree with everything he thinks) in the process. (Ironically, Type 1 has indeed been suggested for him.)

 

Hi Niffer

Well first of all, you should separate Morals from functions. Morals are a likely and typical consequence of the use of certain functions, but one doesn't need the other so to say. A person´s morals can change with time, regardless of MBTI personality.

 

To add to the above post, I think Type 1 is often enough linked up with Te. And it's probably one of the most likely to be associated with a bit of moralizing, even though what it really is would be a deeper story.

 

You are a function.

Condolences.

 

Hello. As mentioned above, morals need to be separated from functions. What you are trying to discern herein are your functions. Just as a general question pertaining to Fe/Fi, do you relate more to Te or Ti?

 

Your post sounds more Enneagram 9 than anything.

Do you find the way certain types deal with ethical questions or logic grating? For instance, when I was seeing an ENTP, the Fe/Fi conflicts were pretty noticeable.