Personality Cafe banner

1 - 20 of 125 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,403 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Use of what function make humans more compassionate toward animal lives?

Animals of the same kind rarely kill each other without a serious reason. Humans do not kill each other too

But we kill other animals to survive and so do they.

We have a lot of fellow humans who do killing as part of their business or for sport. I am sure that majority of people wouldn't feel good at that type of job.

I will tell you how I feel about it:

I hate the idea of killing. I cannot stop the images in my head - I transfer for a time into the animals head and try to see it through their perception. How they feel, seeing butchers instruments or a gun of "sportsmens". This is actually terrible. I am so deeply into those thoughts, that I am afraid to step on a bug. Just imagine - their whole hopes on the future, their families - all gone in an instant by your stepping on them.
Oh...one would laugh and tell me that they are just animals. Dude... we ARE animals too! Why should we not feel for them? We are genetical cousins. We share the same genome no less than 60% with any animal on the Earth.

Oh my... but we share it with plants too. Killing trees for a chair. Or for a book when you can buy an e-book reader? Preposterous!


So, guys. Questions is:
User of what functions would be more compassionate toward other animals/life forms?
Who are those heartless callous killers? (not those who do it for survival). Their most probable functions?


My understanding is that it is Fe (It is interpersonal, but also may be inter-life) that freaks me out so much about all those...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,859 Posts
It could be pretty much any judging function, honestly.

Fe sees in animals an "other" to feel the emotions of.
Fi determines taking any life is against its values.
Ti realizes that we share a conscious awareness of the environment with animals, and both meet the criteria for life, so why should we treat them differently?
Te initially accepts that animals are lesser, but sees evidence to the contrary and changes its opinion.


So....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,651 Posts
I don't think it has to do with functions.

I think it has to do with awareness.

Though, probably those who do not subscribe to society's ideals and traditions are more likely to care about animal lives.

I'm not sure what function that is. Ni?

edit:

[Which type is more likely to kill animals for food/sport?] Their most probable functions?
Anyone with Se. But I think it's important to note that very, very few people enjoy killing. They do it as their job because they need money to provide for their families, and maybe that job pays better than working at McDonald's.


Anyone with Si would be able to relate to the animals' pain and suffering better and would be far less likely to kill them for fun.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,403 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
I don't think it has to do with functions.

I think it has to do with awareness.

Probably those who do not subscribe to society's ideals and traditions are more likely to care about animal lives.

I'm not sure what function that is. Ni?
Yeah, but awareness is all about cognition
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
430 Posts
Sorry, some things are just not type related.

My usual pheasant and goose hunting groups consist of two ESTPs, an ESFP, an INTJ, and me (possibly INTP although not certain).

I've dated two ISFPs relatively long term. One was a strict vegan and appalled by hunting. One would gladly partake in pheasant hunting with me and really took to the sport.

It's much more of a cultural and upbringing thing than anything unique to one's psychology.

EDIT: Although come to think of it, several xSFJs I know seem kind of repelled by hunting, or violence and aggression in general. While I doubt that's a universal Fe-Si thing, there might be something to that.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,856 Posts
Not cog function related.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,805 Posts
@Aha - your particular thoughts are very Fe, and also Ti.... because you approach the 'sense' of it, the logical reasoning or lack thereof, and also how it plays out algorithmically.

Perceiving functions are amoral and irrational... they'd have nothing directly at all to do with moral or even logical decisions... though it may affect the context in which we might perceive them.

The decision to not kill animals would be a moral/ethical one... thus Feeling. However, Thinking might aid in this process, by helping to clarify the situation so that a better moral decision might be made. Thinking decides whether there is a reason to kill an animal.... and on it's own would not seek to do so unless there was a reason. Feeling might choose to kill an animal for the enjoyment of doing so, or some peripheral enjoyment that involved killing as a natural byproduct. Jung said, and I am so glad he did, that even indifference is Feeling... being itself a rational judgment.

That all being said, I think that intuitive types tend to be somewhat more removed from visceral things, and from concrete perception, and thus incidentally less likely to enjoy or engage activities such as hunting for sport, or to have jobs that involve killing animals, etc. That might leave the appearance that N types are more inclined not to kill, but I don't think that is true.

The obvious answer for which type tends to rack up the highest kill count is STP. I am inclined to agree, and the obvious correlation is to Se engagement and concreteism... and the relative unconscious of Feeling.

However, my father is a hilariously stereotypical ISTP raised in a backward rural hunting culture. The house I grew up in had a shed put there for the sole purpose of preparing, storing, and utilizing slain animals. One of my chores as a child was to engage in such activities. However, at about 8-10 years old, so pretty early on, I was taken hunting and witnessed my first killing. I apparently had a hysterical fit, though I don't remember that specifically. I remember, quite vividly, the death. I refused to participate in any sort of violent act from then on out.

I am not certain whether I was an influence, but at around that point, my father also slowly lost his interest in hunting. Over time he did it less and less and less, and certainly never required me to participate. In fact, he actively shielded me from from the efforts of others to compel me in that regard. He himself traded his gun for a camera on his rare excursions. The shed was repurposed.

He raises animals, including cows. I went to his house a few years ago and found him in a emotional state. I discovered that he'd raised a cow for slaughter, but had grown attached to it. He had taken the animal to be slaughtered anyway, and lamented it deeply. It was actually kinda funny... absurd and surreal.

The thing is, I realized at that moment my father was actually living in a state far more objectively moral than myself. I'd just eaten a hamburger... and here was my father, who would be eating an animal he had personally and conscientiously cared for, had personal oversaw the ethical and (mostly) painless death of, and whose death he would genuinely mourn. On the one hand we could say he killed an animal. On the other hand, we could say that he cared for it, and that instead of watching it deteriorate and die anyway, he gave it a fairly ideal death at a time that its body could be utilized and put to desirable use. A paragon of enlightened husbandry, that one.

Then my INFP friend calls up and says he is ordering some chicken at some fast food place and if I want him to get extra for me.

The whole thing gets so bizarre and convoluted. Is it better that out in some field somewhere, there are countless cows just hanging out in relative mindless comfort... or would it be better that they were winked out of existence, to never be and to never have been? Is it better that they wither and die from natural causes or that they are executed while healthy and utilized? Such a dynamic philosophical question, really.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
577 Posts
I'm a feeler with a strong cultural ideology about hunting from my upbringing. I believe that some animals aren't meant to be eaten, but others where put on the earth to be hunted. So yes, I do believe in eating meat and hunting animals for food and have no inhibitions about that. I'm not really a big fan of those people who treat it like a crime, nor do I have much respect for people who trophy hunt to compensate their ego.

I have plenty of empathy for animals; I just recognize a natural order wherein the relationship between predator and prey keeps the environment in balance. Humans are omnivores. We farm, we gather, we hunt and we kill. Still, we have to respect the animals we take for food, and do our best to act as custodians to nature. Humane, sustainable hunting and efficient use of animal parts is very important to me. There is no 'sport' in slaughtering animals for no reason, and a hunter should always be held to standards and bound to a code of honor.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
709 Posts
@Aha Peter Singer uses distinctly logical approach and argumentation. I'd say that otherwise it's Ni +Fe or well developed Fi. Fi isn't a cognitive function but it makes for tendency of having values more independent of the current value system. I know many Fe doms who despite their inner feeling of wrong give into meat eating because they believe it's acceptable as 'labelled: necessary evil' and 'what all people do.'

I on the other hand always felt and pondered on the murder involved and once a grown living being. I comforted myself by thinking: they grew up on a farm and lived a life, all like in nature.


When I saw 'food factories' I realized it's a goddamned holocaust, that surpasses on yearly basis every data we read about 'evil Nazis' and 'evil terrorists.'
I realized that there is no excuse and decided to rather die than continue like that.
But guess what? I found out that vegetarianism is more healthy and works for me better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,403 Posts
Discussion Starter #10 (Edited)

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,701 Posts
So you think that functions are behind what is perfectly natural human behavior. lol 'kay
 
  • Like
Reactions: niss

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,184 Posts
There's a line between purpose and no purpose for me.

I remember as a little kid, skipping through my uncle's garage naming all the breeds of ducks he'd hunted and had laid out on newspaper.

I also remember bawling my eyes out when I accidentally chased a rabbit into traffic and a car hit it.


I love animals, but I recognize the purpose of killing them for food. I also understand thinning populations for health and survival reasons. Deer don't have enough predators to keep their numbers down. Feral cats and dogs create a health risk to other pets and humans if their numbers get out of hand. Unnecessary death...and death that is unnecessarily torturous to the animal is what gets to me.

We all start out as selfish, demanding little imps. All we know is our own needs. Empathy is a learned behavior. Functions can relate to how you interpret empathy and process kindness toward a person or animal...but no one starts out with it. The seeds of empathy start with a thought like "I love when mommy hugs me....maybe the puppy will love hugs too?"
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
16,000 Posts
"My conscience wants vegetarianism to win over the world. And my subconscious is yearning for a piece of juicy meat. But what do I want?"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
158 Posts
I am reminded of the quote from the movie 'Pi':

"When you look into his [the animal] is eyes, you are seeing your own emotions reflected back at you."

Mammals aren't self-conscious man, except for, presumably: dolphins, whales, and elephants.

Well, depending on the culture the organism finds itself in and its consequent sense of morality and to what degree the organism is principles and ideas align with that of the dominating culture (dependent on its degree of self-awareness and intelligence and whether the dominating culture is idea(l)s are perceived as aiding survival) comes either adherence or rejection underlying an emotion (need, desire).

Anyway, I would advocate the respect of nature, to create some form of order rather than the mindless killing, as a factor in creating a healthy culture.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,701 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,376 Posts
I have no clue how the functions relate, but I look at it like this (keep in mind this is from the perspective of someone who consumes animal-based products - I've never killed anything beyond bugs or needed to go kill animals myself for food):

Animals do not have sentience. They don't have hopes and aspirations - just instinct. They can, however, feel pain. So I see nothing particularly terrible about killing animals, but I think it is best to avoid putting them through unnecessary pain when possible.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,689 Posts
I enjoy hunting. I have difficulty seeing how someone can really respect the meat they eat if they've never looked into the eyes the animal and killed it and then field dressed it and cooked it. It seems counter-intuitive that you really respect that a life was taken for you to enjoy your meal if you bought it from a store prepackaged for you as though it mysteriously appeared out of nowhere. Animals that were hunted got to live free and wild and had a short compassionate death because I was sure to do it properly vs a carcass you bought from the grocery store fridge that was mistreated and kept in shitty conditions and met a gruesome end. I don't want to watch any creature suffer or eat a creature that suffered. Meat that I didn't hunt comes from free range farms.

My mothers parents have a farm and were using traditional farming methods long before "organic" and "free range" became a thing. I was brought up plucking the chickens and helping out around the farm during the summers. I was taught to respect the animals and put yourself in their shoes. They aren't human but they certainly do experience pain and stress and should always be treated with all due care.

I think there's something more concerning about the people who just don't seem to connect that the meat they are eating came from a life. And if that makes their stomach turn, maybe they shouldn't be eating it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,859 Posts
 
I enjoy hunting. I have difficulty seeing how someone can really respect the meat they eat if they've never looked into the eyes the animal and killed it and then field dressed it and cooked it. It seems counter-intuitive that you really respect that a life was taken for you to enjoy your meal if you bought it from a store prepackaged for you as though it mysteriously appeared out of nowhere. Animals that were hunted got to live free and wild and had a short compassionate death because I was sure to do it properly vs a carcass you bought from the grocery store fridge that was mistreated and kept in shitty conditions and met a gruesome end. I don't want to watch any creature suffer or eat a creature that suffered. Meat that I didn't hunt comes from free range farms.

My mothers parents have a farm and were using traditional farming methods long before "organic" and "free range" became a thing. I was brought up plucking the chickens and helping out around the farm during the summers. I was taught to respect the animals and put yourself in their shoes. They aren't human but they certainly do experience pain and stress and should always be treated with all due care.

I think there's something more concerning about the people who just don't seem to connect that the meat they are eating came from a life. And if that makes their stomach turn, maybe they shouldn't be eating it.
You assume everyone eats meat. :tongue:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,689 Posts
You assume everyone eats meat. :tongue:
I don't. I just didn't address the topic of vegans and vegetarians as that is irrelevant to my point. I did infer that people who eat meat and find killing animals distasteful should consider becoming vegetarians.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,208 Posts
Sure, animals might not have the level of conscience, awareness and intelligence as ours, they are simpler and we are more complex. But they still have a level of awareness and can feel emotions too. Fear, excitement, simpler happiness or sadness, simpler affection/nurturing states... So no, when you look at their eyes, if you have good empathetic capacities then you'll see their emotions and state; if you are seeing the reflections of your own emotions then you are not truly seeing them (happens with some people who tend to humanize them sometimes, as in attributing human emotions like "dog must feel sad for eating on the floor" instead of truly seeing them).
In doubt, google search for studies of mapping some animals' brains for emotional responses. They are clear signs that animals feels too.


As for cognitive functions, Fe would be the cognitive function related to empathy. Cognitive functions are just a system used to describe different human cognitive functions, and although the 4 cognitive functions attributed to each MBTI type reflects the main 4 functions each MBTI type has preference over, it doesn't mean that we only have 4 cognitive functions anyways. You can have Ni-Fe-Ti-Se as main functions for INFJ, but an INFJ can still have other well developed cognitive functions for example. An INTJ might have Te preference, doesn't mean he would have no Fe at all, it's just Te is stronger preference.
So everyone has some Fe, some more developed or prefered than others.
 
1 - 20 of 125 Posts
Top