Personality Cafe banner
1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,376 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I wonder how most of you INTJs approach morality.

I came up with the following hypothesis, totally a priori.

For the INTJ, tertiary Fi provides a sense of personal values and feelings which i guess is often independent from society standards. I also guess it sometimes may be independent even from past experiences since (1) there is basically no Si in the INTJ, and (2) Fi and Te work together in the INTJ, not opposed like in an INFP or an ENTJ, so it's unlikely for an INTJ to become over-dominated (or at the opposite end of the scale, estranged) from his/her own emotions or personal values. It's a constant game of balance between Te and Fi.

Now, there are a lot of types who get a sense of personal values and feelings through Fi, but the difference i see in the INTJs is that they do not generally apply moral judgments to others and likewise do not like to be judged themselves. Their personal values are only their own personal values and that's all.

Thus INTJs just don't care about morality. Not that they are reckless bastards, i mean it in the sense that emotions and values may seem to them to be (1) too subjective and (2) too hard to analyze or understand with any degree of logical precision.

What's your take on morality? Do you agree with the above?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,350 Posts
No, I have a fairly strong sense of morality, in terms of right and wrong. But it's not rigid and can and does change depending on the situation. I do care about avoiding doing 'wrong' things and preventing them from happening also. I think there's a bit of a strange view on INTJs as amoral, which seems to ignore tertiary (thus usually fairly well-developed) Fi (at least, by late teens/early twenties or so, depending on the individual/life experience).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
510 Posts
I'd have to say that I do care a lot about morality and ethics. If there is an action that I commit which will result in harming of others and society as a whole, I'd likely restrain myself from committing to that action. To what extent depends on my personal values and principles, but I for one, if I were to be forced to commit actions of serious ramifications, I'd rather cease to exist. (That is to say, I'm willing to chose death over committing heinous acts, and my Fi dictates that there is no compromise on this issue.)

Your argument is largely based on the fact that Fi is subjective. However, as for all humans are subject to environmental impact, our Fi is also impacted by the very specific type of upbringing we each have. Personally, in my case, I was brought up in a strictly Christian environment where merits of patience, self-sacrifice, and lifelong serving of others were again and again emphasized. So, I've inevitably adopted much from those ideals, which were later incorporated into my principles by which I live.

One thing you cannot underestimate is the fact that introverted functions (Ni/Si/Fi/Ti), though subjective and individualistic, have much potential to be molded into external standards. That is to say, if you say that Xi functions are solely subjective and have zero objectivity, then your Ti must also be completely subjective and have no potential of objective thinking. Of course, you yourself realize that this is not the case; INTPs, though they pride in their own individualistic thoughts, are indeed very capable of objective thinking. The similar applies to the tertiary Fi of INTJs, it is true that we pride in our own individualistic values, feelings, and emotions; however that does not imply that we are incapable of molding ourselves into external values.

Statistically speaking, objective functions (Ne/Se/Fe/Te) have much higher chance of being in line with the general consensus of each category, as these functions actively seek out objectivity and external validation. However, this trend also doesn't necessarily exclude the capability of subjective functions adhering to external consensus.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
199 Posts
Similar to what @laurie17 said, I have a fairly strong sense of morality as well. Whether it's because of how I was raised, in a LDS household, with an ISTJ mother, or because it's just how I am, I've always felt like I need to do whats right, and should avoid what I know is wrong, or immoral. Also as laurie17 put it, my morals aren't that static. Depending on the situation, I might see something as acceptable that I might normally have never done. My enneatype describes it pretty well, 1w9, if you've read much about it.

Edit: Would like to add in aswell that @Nox is describing it pretty accurately how I apply ethics.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,279 Posts
I would argue that NT may judge morality rather with Thinking than Feeling function. The Feeling just connects the emotional value to it.

So I think INTJ morals may be not so static because of Te (reflecting the outer reality). The value is however connected to Fi hence the "I dont care for other's opinion" stereotype.

We on the other hand accept/judge morality via Ti and create out inner systematic approach towards morality, that can be changed only after systematic contemplation and discovery of fault. Because of Fe we tend to be more tolerant in its expression.

This idea came to me when I got quite high Fi in one test (more than Fe), but realized that this must be projection of confidence in moral code that is produced by dominantly by Ti (using some premises from Fe as well) .
 

·
Meh.
ENTJ
Joined
·
8,158 Posts
I honestly think this is the most misinterpreted aspect of the F function.

In my personal experience it is much more the tertiary and inferior Fe types that seem to disregard 'morality' and 'ethics' than tertiary and inferior Fi types.

It's as if no matter where the Fe is, there is more of a connection with societal/group norms either in a positive, dominant manner or in a negative, dominant manner. The IxTPs that I know are far more concerned with how 'wrong' society's norms are than every single Fi person that I have encounterd. Same goes for the ExTPs I know but in a different way I can't quite put in to words.

IMO, Fi leads much more to an inner sense of right and wrong, and depending on the position level of development of the function to an understanding or expectation that other people have their own inner moral compass rather than being concerned by morality, norms and ethics on a group level.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,623 Posts
I agree with @Zoof about Fi leading to an inner sense of right and wrong. Just because I'm not out there telling everyone about my moral compass doesn't mean it's not there and that it's not a significant influence on how I live my life. In some sense, yes, I don't care about other people's morals so much, but I care deeply about my own. And that's the thing, they are MY morals, and I have no need to have other people live up to the moral standards I've set for myself, so I'm sure that can come off as me "not carrying about morals and ethics". I don't feel the need to discuss it because I'm not interested in changing other people's views, and I'm not really that interested in having other people try to change mine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,902 Posts
Now, there are a lot of types who get a sense of personal values and feelings through Fi, but the difference i see in the INTJs is that they do not generally apply moral judgments to others and likewise do not like to be judged themselves. Their personal values are only their own personal values and that's all.
I usually apply moral judgements to others, but most of the time these stay in my head, and mainly influence how much I trust and like a person. I only discuss my moral judgements of others with other people that I trust when it is important to do so. Even if I don't like someone else's morals/opinions I'm usually accepting of them.

Thus INTJs just don't care about morality. Not that they are reckless bastards, i mean it in the sense that emotions and values may seem to them to be (1) too subjective and (2) too hard to analyze or understand with any degree of logical precision.
This is completely untrue. I care very, very deeply about morality.

Ti cares about logical precision. Te does not. Values are not hard to analyze, especially if you start with a rule like 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you.' Fi builds value-structures in the same way Ti builds logic-structures. If you ever take a philosophy of ethics course, it can be seen as studying possible Fi value-structures. If you want more info on this, i can give you an overview of the more common ethical systems and you can google them.

While emotions are subjective, they often come from an objective source. Like if you have a sore leg, it's usually 'caused' by something like a bruise or a tired muscle. With emotions, the rule between objective occurrence and subjective emotion that arises varies from person to person depending on past experience. (I'm not sure Fe sees it that way, it may be that Fe tries to codify and organize these responses so that an objective occurrence will have a predictable response.) I personally am very accepting of people's past experience giving rise to their current values and emotions... unless it is something so very abhorrent that accepting it is untenable, like premeditated murder (no one in their right mind should conclude that murder is the right course of action... everyone has a right to life).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,279 Posts
I agree with @Zoof about Fi leading to an inner sense of right and wrong. Just because I'm not out there telling everyone about my moral compass doesn't mean it's not there and that it's not a significant influence on how I live my life. In some sense, yes, I don't care about other people's morals so much, but I care deeply about my own.
My point is that there is difference on how those moral values are formed and how their violation is feeled or expressed.

As I said earlier, I believe the moral convictions are molded by Thinking function for us as it is primary judgement function.

When outer system of rules and morality collide with mine, I feel it strongly via Fe. Fe wants harmony with outer world, while Ti judges that mine approach to such rule is more logical and superior -> it creates conflict. Fe types prefer harmony and want to shape rules of society so they can be in harmony of both.
I suspect that Fi users are more likely to dismiss this conflict and more easily follow their own path.

Hence I think that Fe users are more likely to vocalize their dissent while Fi users are more likely to silently act to defy the conflciting moral authority.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,180 Posts
I could be quite accurately described as amoral. Right/wrong, good/evil - these are not things that I concern myself with. At all.

I think that everything concerning morality and ethics is so subjective and so situation dependent that there's no point in even trying to go down that rabbit hole.

The closest thing to a moral "rule" that I have is simple: try not to intentionally cause harm.

I don't pay much attention to external rule systems. If what I'm doing happens to align with someone else's rules or codes of conduct, it's entirely by chance. Or because I'm working their system to my advantage.

I'm not going to presume to be representative of INTJs though. That's just me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,623 Posts
My point is that there is difference on how those moral values are formed and how their violation is feeled or expressed.

As I said earlier, I believe the moral convictions are molded by Thinking function for us as it is primary judgement function.

When outer system of rules and morality collide with mine, I feel it strongly via Fe. Fe wants harmony with outer world, while Ti judges that mine approach to such rule is more logical and superior -> it creates conflict. Fe types prefer harmony and want to shape rules of society so they can be in harmony of both.
I suspect that Fi users are more likely to dismiss this conflict and more easily follow their own path.

Hence I think that Fe users are more likely to vocalize their dissent while Fi users are more likely to silently act to defy the conflciting moral authority.
Te and Fi conflict within me too, because Te can justify just about any action for the sake of efficiency. I think Fi keeps Te in check from just bulldozing its way on the most efficient path regardless of what is in the way. But it's a completely different conflict than what you are talking about. Having inner harmony is more important to me than outer harmony, so I don't care about going against the grain of society if I find myself in conflict. I would rather do what I know is right in my own heart and soul than go along with the crowd for outer harmony even if it puts me in conflict with others, because if I did go against my own moral code, I wouldn't be able to live with myself.

And I disagree that Fi users are more likely to silently act to defy the conflicting moral authority (depending on what kind of moral authority we are talking about). It might be true for tert and inferior Fi, but for dom or secondary Fi, it's pretty out there in the open for everyone to see, especially if you hit a hot button issue. And frankly, if you are doing something to me personally that goes against my moral code I'm not going to just shut up and take it. I might not care if that's how you want to treat other people, but I sure as shit am not going to sit there and let you treat ME that way.

As a side note, I watched this TED talk awhile back: Jonathan Haidt: The moral roots of liberals and conservatives | Talk Video | TED.com

It got me to thinking that people who have Fe higher in their stack might relate more to the 5 channels of morality, where people with Fi higher in their stack would relate more closely to the 2 channels of morality. This is just a gut instinct on my part, but I'd be curious to see what other people thought.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jeb

·
Registered
Joined
·
228 Posts
I concern myself deeply with matters of morality. While I wouldn't argue with the tendency toward developing personal values and feelings independent from societal standards, I take issue with the "independent even from past experiences" aspect. In many ways I am the epitome of a non-conformist in the sense that I don't adhere to the status-quo (and feel that it's my mission to obliterate it), but this is largely informed by my past experiences. When I feel wronged by another person (e.g., abuses of power, hierarchical workplace exploitation, etc.), I never forget that and tend to bundle that experience into my evolving moral landscape, insofar as the depth of pain from that experience changes how I see and approach my interactions with others.

Or so I would like to believe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Xix

·
Registered
Joined
·
113 Posts
I concern myself deeply with matters of morality. While I wouldn't argue with the tendency toward developing personal values and feelings independent from societal standards, I take issue with the "independent even from past experiences" aspect. In many ways I am the epitome of a non-conformist in the sense that I don't adhere to the status-quo (and feel that it's my mission to obliterate it), but this is largely informed by my past experiences. When I feel wronged by another person (e.g., abuses of power, hierarchical workplace exploitation, etc.), I never forget that and tend to bundle that experience into my evolving moral landscape, insofar as the depth of pain from that experience changes how I see and approach my interactions with others.

Or so I would like to believe.
Well put. We have a similar view. It is viseral.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,272 Posts
I wonder how most of you INTJs approach morality.

I came up with the following hypothesis, totally a priori.

For the INTJ, tertiary Fi provides a sense of personal values and feelings which i guess is often independent from society standards. I also guess it sometimes may be independent even from past experiences since (1) there is basically no Si in the INTJ, and (2) Fi and Te work together in the INTJ, not opposed like in an INFP or an ENTJ, so it's unlikely for an INTJ to become over-dominated (or at the opposite end of the scale, estranged) from his/her own emotions or personal values. It's a constant game of balance between Te and Fi.

Now, there are a lot of types who get a sense of personal values and feelings through Fi, but the difference i see in the INTJs is that they do not generally apply moral judgments to others and likewise do not like to be judged themselves. Their personal values are only their own personal values and that's all.

Thus INTJs just don't care about morality. Not that they are reckless bastards, i mean it in the sense that emotions and values may seem to them to be (1) too subjective and (2) too hard to analyze or understand with any degree of logical precision.

What's your take on morality? Do you agree with the above?
Obviously this depends on how developed an INTJ's Fi is, but also more. It also depends on intelligence, neuroticism, and - even though INTJs supposedly have shit for Si - past experiences.
Of course it also boils down to how you define morality too. For example, you could take the Hollywood route: what is moral is just what is convenient for the mass. Or you could take a slightly more controversial road: your level of morality depends on how many moral judgements you draw, and how strongly you feel about them. Or you could take the most common one: your level of morality depends on whether I agree with you. We must establish the definition first. I haven't read through the whole thread, but seeing that it is rather short, I'll assume we haven't done this yet.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,255 Posts
I hate these questions because I do not spend a great deal of time thinking about them. I don't need to, there is an inner compass that tells me if I behave this way....or that way. I will feel bad because it transgresses a value I hold dear. That's the extent of it. I have no desire to impose those inner values on others and have even less desire to adopt anyone elses. I'll act according to my own compass and react if you transgress mine. There is nothing else to really say about it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,309 Posts
Its pretty much always means to an end. Even morals are a means. You apply them as a tool to achieve goals.

You can go your whole life being a hermit with no consideration for others but that wont get you anywhere.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
176 Posts
I would say i was a moral person, in that i have innate considerations of what are 'good' and 'bad', although in recent years I've come to realize that it is internal, but subject to external influence and proliferation. Ie a group will tend towards having a particular set of morals, but they are relative and not absolute. This caused a problem at first as i tend to not be a fan of moral relativism, that is until i realized that just because morals are 'relative' - that doesn't mean i need to take a neutral standpoint. So I've just reached the conclusion that i should stick to my moral conclusions (they are subject to change, as anything, of course), and that there is no illegitimacy to me disagreeing with another's morals. Of course this then led me to realize that 'right' and 'wrong' and moral thinking in itself is a succinct way of justifying our own actions & thoughts to ourselves, and of course people will convince others that theirs is the correct way. Of course this is all well and fine, but doesn't require one to do anything, so IMO people should just continue to fight their corners, as they will.

So that's the truth and anyone who disagrees with me is an evil, evil person! :p
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,991 Posts
it sometimes may be independent even from past experiences
i don't do function-speak and i don't take much of anything that's too heavily constructed out of function-factors too seriously, but this is wrong. i form strong opinions, i experience things that adjust my perspective, i re-think the opinions and take that stuff in. experience is a big feeder, since direct personal experience is far more likely to show me what my strong feelings are despite what i thought i believed, than any amount of sitting around and theorizing about what my beliefs are.

the difference i see in the INTJs
i don't pay much attention to isolating the judgey-judgey types in the world by their mbti groupings, or even in mbti-ing real world people at all. so i wouldn't know. me, i don't look over my neighbour's fence a whole lot partly because other people are exhausting. i've got enough bandwidth load just dealing with my own private backyard.

Thus INTJs just don't care about morality.
this is incorrect but understandable, if you're defining 'morality' as some borg-like communal externalised thing-type thing that no one person owns but that 'everyone' shares. it's completely inaccurate if you're talking from a less monolithic definition which includes the idea of it taking more than one form, and you're referring to whether or not i have a form my own. it's kind of like saying that people with their own air-conditioning don't care about climate change because they don't shiver or sweat or something. or maybe not. i'm not sure.

i mean it in the sense that emotions and values may seem to them to be (1) too subjective and (2) too hard to analyze or understand with any degree of logical precision.
no, not really. and that 'logical precision' thing is, you should excuse me, a pile of horseshit straight from the stereotype. a much better [ETA: and just as intj-ish] reason, which you missed, is that my set of beliefs and strong feelings on subjects like this are private. i might be able to make at least as good an effort as anyone else's at 'expressing' my thoughts, but i prefer not to a lot of the time. and i prefer not to hear about other people's either. it's all far too squirmy and tmi, for my taste.

What's your take on morality? Do you agree with the above?
i think you're doing what it seems like a lot of intp people do, and way overcrediting 'logic' for anything about us that maybe doesn't seem to make sense. there's a hell of a lot more to us than just that, and i think this is a good case in point.
 

·
MOTM Feb 2016
Joined
·
10,008 Posts
I wonder how most of you INTJs approach morality.

I came up with the following hypothesis, totally a priori.

For the INTJ, tertiary Fi provides a sense of personal values and feelings which i guess is often independent from society standards. I also guess it sometimes may be independent even from past experiences since (1) there is basically no Si in the INTJ, and (2) Fi and Te work together in the INTJ, not opposed like in an INFP or an ENTJ, so it's unlikely for an INTJ to become over-dominated (or at the opposite end of the scale, estranged) from his/her own emotions or personal values. It's a constant game of balance between Te and Fi.

Now, there are a lot of types who get a sense of personal values and feelings through Fi, but the difference i see in the INTJs is that they do not generally apply moral judgments to others and likewise do not like to be judged themselves. Their personal values are only their own personal values and that's all.

Thus INTJs just don't care about morality. Not that they are reckless bastards, i mean it in the sense that emotions and values may seem to them to be (1) too subjective and (2) too hard to analyze or understand with any degree of logical precision.

What's your take on morality? Do you agree with the above?
I can't speak to the typology side of things as I'm not well-read on that matter.

Nonetheless, morality itself is a very vague term. We might define it as the study of "right" and "wrong", but those too are vague terms. So, before we talk about morality, I think it's important to know what we mean. For me, I take the position that Sam Harris takes, where I define it as the well-being and suffering of conscious creatures. The welfare of conscious creatures is important to me, and I have a system of morality based on that.

I think it's inaccurate to propose that INTJs are amoral. I also think it's inaccurate to propose that morality is subjective. The problem stems from morality not being well defined. It's only subjective so much as language is subjective. Once you actually define what morality is, as with any bit of language, you can be objective about it. Mathematics would be subjective if we couldn't agree on the meaning of mathematics. Morality is the same.

I'll tell you what is subjective and difficult to analyze with logical precision: vagueness.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,442 Posts
I approach morality with Ni-Te. I rarely involve my personal values. I seek a philosophical base in ethical vs unethical centered on logical principles. Sure, some things 'feel' wrong but that is not a good reason.
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top