Personality Cafe banner

1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,436 Posts
Seing injustices everywhere. Makes the world look rotten.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sangmu and attic

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,314 Posts
eth·ic noun \ˈe-thik\
: rules of behavior based on ideas about what is morally good and bad


In practice it means that I will not behave in a way that is morally bad. Such behavior is against my own personal values and if I would behave morally bad I would feel awful about myself. Of course I am not a perfect human being, sometimes I do something which is against my own moral code, but I do my very best to behave morally good at all times.

Example:

Value: I think it is important that I help others
Situation: An elderly person who was walking right in front of me suddenly stumbles. She has hurt her knee in the process.
My behavior: I ask the elderly lady if she is okay, if she is feeling pain or not and if she thinks she can stand up. If she is ok: I help her up. If she is not ok: I call for help (911) and stay with her until help arrives.
 
  • Like
Reactions: attic

·
Registered
Joined
·
771 Posts
But is it always this way? I guess it is more so with enneagram 2s, 6s and 9s.. than say 4s.

I think I might have been like that some years ago, but now I kind of accept all the misery an injustice in a pessimist - "this is how things are, this is how people are" - kind of way. (but not completely, as I still would vote some pretty radical left wing parties)

I wouldn't say I'm selfish, I'm just not there helping with every little injustice that I see... because for the most part I'm in my head daydreaming and thinking about my self.
I can be idealist from time to time, and in certain situations I might be the only one that stands out for something. But I think it's rare, even if in those situations I feel it very strongly. Like, I don't know, the protagonist of Paths of Glory, when he stands against his superiors, I really feel I would do the same. But it probably has to be something pretty extreme that really hits me.

My code of ethics is not something thought at all; if I have any, my code of ethics is just what I feel is right. In each moment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,161 Posts
I would say the nature of Fi is one of appraising things for their value and importance.
How it translates to real life could vary, I think it means that we have a reaction to certain things that sort of cross lines to what ever internal sense of good and bad we have.
This may or may not follow into a congruent behaviour of that value depending on the circumstance.

Looking at Fi there is this post I thought was rather sweet, to what extent it's true may vary though.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
14,161 Posts
Everyone has an ethical system, and I think it comes out more in situations where values conflict. So...that's probably when we've either made a mistake and learned the outcome of an action wasn't aligned with our values, often times.

But my ethical beliefs just sort of show in how I behave. I am not perfect at all...and have done many things in my life that I will never do again.

An example might be that I value honesty (various forms of it including being honest about my own emotions), and also social harmony or the happiness of another person.

So it could just look like silence...which is frustrating because of course it's nice when people can acknowledge and respect your own inner world, motivations, and feelings.

Otherwise, I imagine it comes out in a lot of little less-obvious actions. If you hate capitalism for example, you might end up working at a job that is low paying but rewarding in that you feel you're making the world a better place. Or you may simply avoid actively hurting people in ways you know. Or recycling or something. It's nothing remarkable and I am very critical of myself because I don't want to do bad things. I think it helps to be able to talk with people of similar values though--because it takes the other functions, including Te, Si, and Ne to figure out what the outcomes of someone's actions are...or to understand the complexity of a situation.

Waking up to realize I've done something wrong without intending to is never a good feeling, and usually discussing things can help me to get a better understanding of what the right plan of action is.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
5,249 Posts
Does anyone have some thought about infps and rule of thumb-ethics, versus utilitarian ethics?

I would not say infps are all utilitarianists, but I have got the impression (could be coloured by my own approach, that I notice similar ones more perhaps) many tend towards that side of the spectrum more, not having a very rigid sort of ethics.


More than being strong I see it as though ethics is used more broadly, that it is present in most considerations, and that it has the last word so often, over say efficiency or desire or duty.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,481 Posts
.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
14,161 Posts
Does anyone have some thought about infps and rule of thumb-ethics, versus utilitarian ethics?

I would not say infps are all utilitarianists, but I have got the impression (could be coloured by my own approach, that I notice similar ones more perhaps) many tend towards that side of the spectrum more, not having a very rigid sort of ethics.


More than being strong I see it as though ethics is used more broadly, that it is present in most considerations, and that it has the last word so often, over say efficiency or desire or duty.
I think rule of thumb is a useful and quick way to make a generally good choice, and I have plenty of them. But what do you mean by rule of thumb ethics?

But I guess utilitarianism seems like it appeals both to the lofty ideals (like a world where people are in harmony with each other--minimizing suffering and maximizing happiness for everyone...certainly not at the expense of the extreme suffering of a few)--and it also maybe appeals to a sort of realism or perhaps Te approach, of ethics serving the whole and serving people. It focuses a lot on the practical application and purpose of ethics more than some of the more ecclesiastical approaches which focus on duty to a deity.

I watched a lecture where the lecturer (from some ivy league school) said that capitalism was basically utilitarianism. That sacrificing the few (slave laborers) for maximizing the happiness of all was that practice. But I don't agree with her. I think that that moreso it is maximizing the dissatisfaction of many for the happiness of the few--so I thought that was a strange comparison.

I think that the more we learn about human happiness, Utilitarianism seems much more practical and healthy. After a certain point, material wealth doesn't really contribute much to happiness for the majority of people, and I think that livens up Utilitarianism a bit for me.

Also--I think we need to attend to the importance of individualism and having an individual identity, freedom of choice, and expression for happiness. I also believe it is within our nature, when we empathize with those around us, to not want to have scapegoats because we know it could be us...and that knowledge should motivate us to want to avoid that practice unless absolutely necessary. Happiness is not just affected by the material world, but also by social bonds, attaining knowledge, spiritual freedom, and a bunch of other intangible stuff that exists on the mental or emotional realm.

It sounds to me like you are noticing the way Utilitarianism works towards a sort of general goal, whereas some ethical philosophies are more about adhering to rigid rules that are defined by divine guidance or objective morality. (I really shouldn't use words like objective and subjective though because I still don't think I grasp them).

I also only took one ethics class and have watched some youtube lectures and speakers. That's about the extent of my education...but those are my thoughts! Also, I just think Utilitarianism seems most useful but I'm not really so into it that I would stand by it if it were to conflict with some other beliefs of mine, which makes me something other than a utilitarian...a Kantian, I guess. And I haven't learned much about Kant.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,161 Posts
In ethics, virtue answers the question “What is the right sort of person to be?”, in contrast to duty, which answers the question “What is the right thing to do?”.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/brenkert.htm
However, there is another understanding of morality which should not be forgotten. This is the sense of morality in which morality is linked with certain virtues, excellences, or flourishing ways of living. In this sense, morality is not primarily concerned with rules and principles, but with the cultivation of certain dispositions or traits of character. This view has been expressed in this way: ‘The moral law ... has to be expressed in the form, “be this”, not in the form, “do this” ... the true moral law says “hate not”, instead of “kill not”...... the only mode of stating the moral law must be a rule of character.’ [28]
...
In contrast to the more restricted notion of moral excellence as the fulfilment of moral duty, the Greeks wanted to know what kind of life is best suited for a human being. What kinds and range of activities are required for a person to lead a flourishing life? To lead such a life would be to lead the moral life par excellence.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
513 Posts
I would say the nature of Fi is one of appraising things for their value and importance.
How it translates to real life could vary, I think it means that we have a reaction to certain things that sort of cross lines to what ever internal sense of good and bad we have.
This may or may not follow into a congruent behaviour of that value depending on the circumstance.

Looking at Fi there is this post I thought was rather sweet, to what extent it's true may vary though.
Thanks for the link, that was an interesting read
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top