Personality Cafe banner

1 - 20 of 42 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
198 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hi all,

This was originally part of another thread, but no-one replied there, and I also think this topic deserves its own thread.

----​

I have Fi, about as much as Ti, but the thing is, that many ENFPs speak a lot about morals and values and about doing what is "right". Now, we all like to do what's right from one or more points of view or considerations, but I just don't recognise this "moralising" in myself. I do not think in terms of morals. In fact I feel morals and ethics just boils down to opinion -- we all have them and they seem "right" from our own perspective.

Maybe I think in terms of ideals instead of morals, if that makes sense? I don't care whether it is unethical/immoral to steal. But it is against my ideals, and against my opinions about what is generally acceptable, not to say honourable or noble, behaviour. My ideals are a more personal thing than morals typically seem to be. They are based more on my personal feelings (eg. I would feel bad about being stolen from) and theories (eg. society would not function if too many persons were stealing), including sympathetic (compassionate) concerns (eg. I may think that another person would feel bad about being stolen from).

Or maybe this is just a matter of terminology? Another term I can think of is "code of honour".

Regards,
Albert.
 

·
exploring space
ENFP
Joined
·
9,002 Posts
I think morals are not a F thing, but rather that each function gives a different moral perspective. The more emotional and human connection that F produces is only one side of the moral landscape and can produce negative results even with good intentions. Example of this is the christian morality of being too merciful or "turning the other cheek", or just general pacifism which can lead to self-destruction.

I guess the way I view morals is more in terms of where we are going as humanity and that's towards becoming intelligent. Sure it's my opinion that I want this to happen to us, but it's also a fact that we've been evolving for millions of years towards that and as we do, we also evolve morally. I see it as my responsibility to be as consistent as I can and constantly work towards that. Also how one understands moral behavior is tied to their personality and intelligence, there's an inevitable biological force in this, and evolution is slow.

edit: back to the morals = F things it's a mistake, prob produced by F being what one values, i.e. what they like or dislike. It's not about values = moral values.
 

·
Registered
ISTP
Joined
·
1,203 Posts
My experience is that when you already talk like this (i.e., in abstract terms) about the issue, you indeed aren't much in the F camp. Kantian reasoning (your stealing example) is the domain of T. So, the most simple reason why you wouldn't find this in you would be that you're not an F type, if that was your question. The TP, if you want to try in on for size, additionally to treating the matter of morality in the abstract (that is, thought-about), adds a million shades of grey. Nothing is ever absolute. Everything needs to be qualified, depending on context and circumstances. It creates a somewhat hopeless construct of relativity that, for all the flexibility if offers, has me every now and then looking with envy at people who have an unerring moral compass they can follow. I'm never sure, and always wondering.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
341 Posts
Hi all,

This was originally part of another thread, but no-one replied there, and I also think this topic deserves its own thread.

----​

I have Fi, about as much as Ti, but the thing is, that many ENFPs speak a lot about morals and values and about doing what is "right". Now, we all like to do what's right from one or more points of view or considerations, but I just don't recognise this "moralising" in myself. I do not think in terms of morals. In fact I feel morals and ethics just boils down to opinion -- we all have them and they seem "right" from our own perspective.

Maybe I think in terms of ideals instead of morals, if that makes sense? I don't care whether it is unethical/immoral to steal. But it is against my ideals, and against my opinions about what is generally acceptable, not to say honourable or noble, behaviour. My ideals are a more personal thing than morals typically seem to be. They are based more on my personal feelings (eg. I would feel bad about being stolen from) and theories (eg. society would not function if too many persons were stealing), including sympathetic (compassionate) concerns (eg. I may think that another person would feel bad about being stolen from).

Or maybe this is just a matter of terminology? Another term I can think of is "code of honour".

Regards,
Albert.
Whether it be ideals, a code of honor, or ethics, morals are the substance of all of these things. Ideals are the standards of morality by which we measure the integrity and virtuousness of an individual. The reason behind this right/wrong sensation that you experience is an amalgam of mores (societal level morality) and your conscience--your default discernment tool in understanding right from wrong. The variance behind such things are a cocktail of factors: how the individual was socialized, to a limited extent their personality, and before all other things, what decisions they make and what they set their mind upon. All of these factors lead to the understanding that perception enables ethics, albeit in a way that is not syndicated across all members of society. This does, however, mean that as ideals/virtues are to be cultivated, that morality is in fact standardized. The competition is not in what is right or wrong, but its individualistic pursuit.

When we go off of what we feel what is right or wrong, the aspects that are encompassed in this impulsive (it is seldom intuitive) decision-making is dictated by not only by the conscience and second nature mores; they are in competition with our human desires, which often clash with morality. What may seem logical may very well be destructive, and what seems benevolent may be malign. The right and wrong of any consideration may both be present at the same time; it is only through careful reflection that we can refine our ethics and come closer to our ideals. The fact that you have ideals in place certainly sets you in a good position, @nptype and remember to reach ever further for them through your ethicality--through the truthful understanding of morality.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
198 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
My experience is that when you already talk like this (i.e., in abstract terms) about the issue, you indeed aren't much in the F camp. Kantian reasoning (your stealing example) is the domain of T. So, the most simple reason why you wouldn't find this in you would be that you're not an F type, if that was your question.
It is a question I'm very interested in, yes.

The TP, if you want to try in on for size, additionally to treating the matter of morality in the abstract (that is, thought-about), adds a million shades of grey. Nothing is ever absolute.
That sounds a lot like me. I call it perspectivism, but I'm not sure that is the proper use of this term.

Everything needs to be qualified, depending on context and circumstances. It creates a somewhat hopeless construct of relativity that, for all the flexibility if offers, has me every now and then looking with envy at people who have an unerring moral compass they can follow. I'm never sure, and always wondering.
I don't feel I have that problem. Maybe that is because I have an FP-approach in addition to the TP-. Could be that I'm finding the relative harmony between the 2 perspectives, or could be because if one perspective is uncertain, the other will decide the question. I suppose there may well be situations where I'm uncertain from both perspectives.

-Albert.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,475 Posts
I hear Ts sometimes hearing or being told that Fi doesn’t use reasoning or have reasons for things. We do, but we use a feeling-related reasoning (which is often called morals). For instance “i wouldn't steal because I can imagine what it would feel like to be stolen from”. That’s the ABCs of Fi. You know your own feelings and you imagine yourself into someone else’s shoes so you can feel what you would feel in that situation. And you do this starting at age 3 or less in my experience, and you take note when people have less feelings than you would have if you were in their situation. But often i stick with what I felt was the thing that was right, what I would feel. Not with what I observe for the other person. I actually believe noting these differences is the source of Fi’s inspiring nature.

I don’t mind the word “morals“. My morals are individual to circumstance and to my feeling and thinking.. I think both Ti and Fi give the ability for constantly thinking “What do I think is right action given these particular circumstances? ” Where Fe and Te think more along the lines of “What do other people feel? What does THE (but it could be anything they give authority to like the Bible, for instance) law say?” Fi is very much about navigating complexities of these circumstances.

For instance, we can see the complexities that blanket-statement morals do not always take into account. For instance, someone close to me (a relative) was having an affair. Her husband of one year was saying he was not attracted to her anymore but that he would kill himself if she left. She told him she wanted a divorce. He wanted to work it out, and wanted counseling but in the meantime he said for her to have an affair. She would have rather gotten a divorce at that point, although she loved him and takes marriage seriously, but she also takes her happiness and sexual nature seriously. He insisted they keep working on things while she got her needs met elsewhere. He had been very hurtful verbally about not being attracted to her, body shaming and such, and she did meet someone who fulfilled her needs and made her feel good about herself for about a year while her husband’s mental state improved. It was a mess, but she loved him and he wanted her to hang on and he was hanging on in this weird way. It did work out. He re-gained his attraction after about a year and they’ve been married for 14 years. She is a very honest and faithful person by nature, but also has a high need for sexual fulfillment (which supposedly was the root of the problem, he wasn’t used to a woman who was more sexual than he was— there’s still some mystery about that.)

My Te brother and my mom heard she was having an affair (from her gossipy mom) and were voicing their decision to never talk to her again as affairs are against their morals— voiced it in my presence. I said “It is MUCH more complicated than that. I’m not going to explain, but she has been honest with her husband the whole time.” They said “Oh, well we don’t really want to know the details. We just think affairs are wrong.” I said, “ Of course affairs are wrong and she would agree, but you don’t have all of the information and you can’t judge her using the bit of information that you have. This was not all her fault Or even choice.”

I’m pretty sure that we often make other people more aware of individual circumstances.

I’m sometimes amazed at how very circumstantial I feel even on things I am in general hard-core against. Stealing when someone is starving, affairs in a situation I wrote about, an abortion for a financially struggling very young girl with a 3 month old baby whose husband turned out to be very mentally ill. Circumstances are incredibly important— and people rarely understand all of other people’s circumstances. But I think circumstances are considered very important to Fi.

I think I’m very comfortable with saying “Stealing is wrong... but would be right in x + (insert Ne ideas here) circumstances and absolutely wrong in y+ circumstances. Affairs are wrong but less wrong in x+ circumstances. Abortion is wrong but smart or understandable in x+ circumstances. I feel very comfortable with that. I’m not sure how else to view it. Not taking circumstances into consideration is wrong in x+ infinity circumstances. Thinking of right and wrong is philosophy and I personally think philosophy is the realm of Ti and Fi.

I’ve had multiple conversations on this forum about a particular difference between Fe that looks for how others feel and takes all of those different opinions into account or Fi that cannot help but constantly think “what do I think is right?” High Fe hardly ever thinks that phrase, but it is a constant question for me. “What do I think is right?” in x circumstances? And those judgements often don’t have anything to do with what I want, which information I am also highly aware of.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
224 Posts
Norms: (state, society, person)

nptype said:
I don't care whether it is unethical/immoral to steal. But it is against my ideals, and against my opinions about what is generally acceptable, not to say honourable or noble, behaviour. My ideals are a more personal thing than morals typically seem to be. They are based more on my personal feelings (eg. I would feel bad about being stolen from) and theories (eg. society would not function if too many persons were stealing), including sympathetic (compassionate) concerns (eg. I may think that another person would feel bad about being stolen from).
There are

  • the norms of your state
    [*]the norms of the society that surrounds you
    [*]the personal norms that govern your behaviour
    (not mere SJW babble)
Norms = Normative sentences with an a) obligation, b) permission or c) prohibition

You describe two kinds of personal norms, the first is based on your feelings (“My ideals), the second is based on theories (→ principles extracted from positive law; → legal philosophy; → practical philosophy, example: postulate of generalizability; etc.).

In each individual case you can decide which of the norms of the three above norm reservoirs you follow.

Northern Lights said:
My experience is that when you already talk like this (i.e., in abstract terms) about the issue, you indeed aren't much in the F camp. Kantian reasoning (your stealing example) is the domain of T.
Exactly. But I guess the examples were chosen specifically to illustrates this:

nptype said:
I have Fi, about as much as Ti
By the way, this is the typical self-presentation of male feelers when asked about their T/F preference.

but I just don't recognise this "moralising" in myself.
I find it interesting that you mention your potential negative feeling judgments, and that Jung writes about negativity when he writes about introverted feeling:

Carl Gustav Jung said:
3. Feeling

Introverted feeling is determined principally by the subjective factor. This means that the feeling-judgment differs quite as essentially from extraverted feeling as does the introversion of thinking from extraversion. It is unquestionably difficult to give an intellectual presentation of the introverted feeling process, or even an approximate description of it, although the peculiar character of this kind of feeling simply stands out as soon as one becomes aware of it at all. Since it is primarily controlled by subjective preconditions, and is only secondarily concerned with the object, this feeling appears much less upon the surface and is, as a rule, misunderstood. It is a feeling which apparently depreciates the object; hence it usually becomes noticeable in its negative manifestations. The existence of a positive feeling can be inferred only indirectly, as it were. Its aim is not so much to accommodate to the objective fact as to stand above it, since its whole unconscious effort is to give reality to the underlying images. It is, as it were, continually seeking an image which has no existence in reality, but of which it has had a sort of previous vision. From objects that can never fit in with its aim it seems to glide unheedingly away. It strives after an inner intensity, to which at the most, objects contribute only an accessory stimulus. The depths of this feeling can only be divined – they can never be clearly comprehended. It makes men silent and difficult of access; with the sensitiveness of the mimosa, it shrinks from the brutality of the object, in order to expand into the depths of the subject. It puts forward negative feeling-judgments or assumes an air of profound indifference, as a measure of self-defence.

Everything, therefore, that has been said of the introverted thinking refers equally to introverted feeling, only here everything is felt while there it was thought. But the fact that thoughts can generally be expressed more intelligibly than feelings demands a more than ordinary descriptive or artistic capacity before the real wealth of this feeling can be even approximately presented or communicated to the outer world. Whereas subjective thinking, on account of its unrelatedness, finds great difficulty in arousing an adequate understanding, the same, though in perhaps even higher degree, holds good for subjective feeling. In order to communicate with others it has to find an external form which is not only fitted to absorb the subjective feeling in a satisfying expression, but which must also convey it to one's fellowman in such a way that a parallel process takes place in him.

Continually emancipating itself from the relation to the object, this feeling creates a freedom, both of action and of conscience, that is only answerable to the subject, and that may even renounce all traditional values. But so much the more does unconscious thinking fall a victim to the power of objective facts.
It seems that for systemic reasons these feelers can’t say much about their personal norms even if they do their best. Which is why their personal-norm waving often appears as nothing but an image management effort.

Northern Lights said:
has me every now and then looking with envy at people who have an unerring moral compass they can follow. I'm never sure, and always wondering.
Interesting. I wouldn’t call it moral but personal compass, like personal computer, because moral is a term already used for the customs (→ mos) of the surrounding society. Do you have examples from everyday life that illustrate your decision-making dilemmas?
 

·
Registered
ISTP
Joined
·
1,203 Posts
Interesting. I wouldn’t call it moral but personal compass, like personal computer, because moral is a term already used for the customs (→ mos) of the surrounding society. Do you have examples from everyday life that illustrate your decision-making dilemmas?
Which, even if you wanted to make the distinction, wouldn't be a bad fit, since I'm not tied to whatever society deems appropriate either, no?

Real life examples ... not dilemmas at such. I mean, we hardly end up in extraordinary circumstances in daily life. The point was exactly what I wrote: the context-dependency leaves you with no fix point on which to ground the entire construct. There is no true north. Every single action I could take is subject a (hypothetical) exception for which any global moral rule would not apply, leaving me de facto without any moral rules whatsoever. And this is a dangerous thing -- in essence, I distrust myself, knowing I could potentially justify anything, because reason can justify anything. A rigid morality, a clear view of right and wrong, cannot.

And this state being the way it is, all I can do is constantly question myself and use any number of logical frameworks that (hopefully) allow me to consider enough angles, impacts, and consequences that based on the beliefs and ideals I consciously picked, I'm making the right decision. But certainty doesn't lie that way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
198 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
There are

  • the norms of your state
    [*]the norms of the society that surrounds you
    [*]the personal norms that govern your behaviour
    (not mere SJW babble)
What is SJW? SJ woman? I don't think you mean St. John's Wort. :)

Norms = Normative sentences with an a) obligation, b) permission or c) prohibition
I'd like to add d) encouragement. I mean that some actions are encouraged by the norms. It differs from obligation, in that there is no obligation, and from permission, in that it is not merely permitted. Charity would be a common example of what I mean.

I feel that in many instances where people think in terms of obligation or prohibition, I think in terms of encouragement (eg. I think it is honourable/noble/nice to refrain from stealing).

You describe two kinds of personal norms, the first is based on your feelings (“My ideals), the second is based on theories (→ principles extracted from positive law; → legal philosophy; → practical philosophy, example: postulate of generalizability; etc.).
I don't feel I've directly "extracted" my theories from anywhere. They just "happened". Sure I have been influenced by outer factors, such as my upbringing, but I don't think I've extracted my ideas from any particular source.

Northern Lights said:
My experience is that when you already talk like this (i.e., in abstract terms) about the issue, you indeed aren't much in the F camp. Kantian reasoning (your stealing example) is the domain of T.
Exactly. But I guess the examples were chosen specifically to illustrates this:
nptype said:
I have Fi, about as much as Ti
Not deliberately.

nptype said:
I have Fi, about as much as Ti
By the way, this is the typical self-presentation of male feelers when asked about their T/F preference.
Interesting. So you think I'm F?

I find it interesting that you mention your potential negative feeling judgments,
I'm not sure what you mean by negative.

and that Jung writes about negativity when he writes about introverted feeling:
Carl Gustav Jung said:
... this feeling creates a freedom, both of action and of conscience, that is only answerable to the subject, and that may even renounce all traditional values.
I can very much relate to that.

It seems that for systemic reasons these feelers can’t say much about their personal norms even if they do their best. Which is why their personal-norm waving often appears as nothing but an image management effort.
I don't feel I have a particular problem speaking about my personal norms. Maybe that is because I also use T?

-Albert.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
198 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
I hear Ts sometimes hearing or being told that Fi doesn’t use reasoning or have reasons for things. We do, but we use a feeling-related reasoning (which is often called morals). For instance “i wouldn't steal because I can imagine what it would feel like to be stolen from”. That’s the ABCs of Fi.
Yeah, I do that, but I call it sympathy/compassion.

You know your own feelings and you imagine yourself into someone else’s shoes so you can feel what you would feel in that situation. And you do this starting at age 3 or less in my experience,
For me, 5 or 6, as far as I can tell.

I don’t mind the word “morals“. My morals are individual to circumstance and to my feeling and thinking.. I think both Ti and Fi give the ability for constantly thinking “What do I think is right action given these particular circumstances? ”
Yes, circumstances are important to me too.

For instance, we can see the complexities that blanket-statement morals do not always take into account.
Right.

I’m sometimes amazed at how very circumstantial I feel even on things I am in general hard-core against. Stealing when someone is starving, affairs in a situation I wrote about, an abortion for a financially struggling very young girl with a 3 month old baby whose husband turned out to be very mentally ill. Circumstances are incredibly important— and people rarely understand all of other people’s circumstances. But I think circumstances are considered very important to Fi.
Yes, and to Ti as well.

I think I’m very comfortable with saying “Stealing is wrong... but would be right in x + (insert Ne ideas here) circumstances and absolutely wrong in y+ circumstances. Affairs are wrong but less wrong in x+ circumstances. Abortion is wrong but smart or understandable in x+ circumstances. I feel very comfortable with that. I’m not sure how else to view it. Not taking circumstances into consideration is wrong in x+ infinity circumstances.
Yes, although you pretty much said it in other words above.

Thinking of right and wrong is philosophy and I personally think philosophy is the realm of Ti and Fi.
I wouldn't necessarily say that. I certainly don't think Fe/Te types cannot be into philosophy.

-Albert.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,473 Posts
Morals is a set of habits which are consistent with one's urge of living. The more an organism is moral, the more it is optimized hence stereotypical. There are only many ways to fail.

The flaws in one's consistency are as many flaws in one's epistemology that prevent from building an understanding of one's flaws. The less one is moral, the more dumb reasons one can find to believe otherwise : "morals don't exist" "everyone has its own", and some god shit people say. Reality check: the quicker you age the harder you fail.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,475 Posts
I wouldn't necessarily say that. I certainly don't think Fe/Te types cannot be into philosophy.

-Albert.
I meant to clarify this. You pointing it out to me shows your Fi and Ne. You don’t want anyone disparaged or their abilities labeled as preventing them from a certain area. It’s true we would hate to be limited and labeled ourselves. So I meant TI and Fi’s realm when discussing originality in considering what to do in different circumstances. I think many INFJs love philosophy as a subject— maybe other Fe’s do too, but they don’t come up with it on their own very naturally without discussing philosophy they’ve read or heard (although it’s possible In tertiary and maybe a bit later in life more common to synthesize all that they have read.) Often when they listen to me talk about what I think is right in a certain situation they will say “Is that Kierkegaard or a bit of Plato?” And I say no... it’s just me. The feelings originated with me. I actually don’t know any Te people who are into philosophy, but they must exist. I’m not really into it much myself as a subject. The only point of my being into it would be to give names to different areas of thinking and maybe challenge my mind a bit with the differences between my thinking and the other philosopher— which always arise as very apparent. I will be reading and arguing in my mind with Plato and Aristotle and Machiavelli which I would have loved to do out loud if it was safe for me in those times. I imagine they would have welcomed a good debate, except that I am a woman. It would be so fun to debate them. See...we don’t much think of authority (Te third). I’m going to do what I think is right anyway, so it’s not like reading these guys would influence my actions (all Te’s flip out at this statement?)
@nptype. Why the dislike of the word morals? Do you equate it with the blanket statements? Can you go into the problems or the like/dislike you see around this issue a bit more?
@Northern Lights. Our first function is abstract, we have to work to not be abstract in order to explain things the other direction. That was all Ne Fi thinking that would be common to me above.

All Jungian purists go nuts, but I maintain that Jung never really understood Fi very well, although he was able to categorize it, recognize it and semi-describe it and understand it’s place in his theory. But I don’t think he went as far in describing it as the people who actually possess it can.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
198 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
Whether it be ideals, a code of honor, or ethics, morals are the substance of all of these things.
Can you clarify what you mean by "substance"?

Ideals are the standards of morality by which we measure the integrity and virtuousness of an individual.
I don't think ideals are "standard", it's more like morality is.

I think we measure people's virtuousness more by their actions than ideals.

The reason behind this right/wrong sensation that you experience is an amalgam of mores (societal level morality) and your conscience--your default discernment tool in understanding right from wrong.
I don't feel anything that I'd describe as a "sensation" regarding right/wrong.

The variance behind such things are a cocktail of factors: how the individual was socialized, to a limited extent their personality, and before all other things, what decisions they make and what they set their mind upon.
I'd say it's the other way around: conscience/morals determine decisions.

The right and wrong of any consideration may both be present at the same time;
I agree on that.

it is only through careful reflection that we can refine our ethics and come closer to our ideals. The fact that you have ideals in place certainly sets you in a good position, @nptype and remember to reach ever further for them through your ethicality--through the truthful understanding of morality.
I don't need to reach further for ideals -- I am already too much of a perfectionist, and that is in fact one of the problems I need to resolve.

-Albert.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
198 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
I meant to clarify this. You pointing it out to me shows your Fi and Ne.
As you suggest below:
You don’t want anyone disparaged or their abilities labeled as preventing them from a certain area. It’s true we would hate to be limited and labeled ourselves.
I could have been thinking along those lines, but before I got that far, I went with a "thinking" objection. You touch upon it below (my emphasis):

I actually don’t know any Te people who are into philosophy, but they must exist.
I suppose that is Ti-thinking.

So I meant TI and Fi’s realm when discussing originality in considering what to do in different circumstances. I think many INFJs love philosophy as a subject— maybe other Fe’s do too, but they don’t come up with it on their own very naturally without discussing philosophy they’ve read or heard (although it’s possible In tertiary and maybe a bit later in life more common to synthesize all that they have read.) Often when they listen to me talk about what I think is right in a certain situation they will say “Is that Kierkegaard or a bit of Plato?” And I say no... it’s just me.
Haha, that's funny. Interesting too. I think I see what you mean now, namely that they have a different approach to it than Ti/Fi types.

The feelings originated with me. I actually don’t know any Te people who are into philosophy, but they must exist. I’m not really into it much myself as a subject. The only point of my being into it would be to give names to different areas of thinking and maybe challenge my mind a bit with the differences between my thinking and the other philosopher— which always arise as very apparent.
I'm the same. I keep coming across philosophy recurrently, even though my interest is secondary, as you describe. For example, I find some of Nietzsche's terminology useful (eg. perspectivism).

I’m going to do what I think is right anyway, so it’s not like reading these guys would influence my actions (all Te’s flip out at this statement?)
Can you elaborate a bit on the Te's flipping out?

@nptype. Why the dislike of the word morals? Do you equate it with the blanket statements? Can you go into the problems or the like/dislike you see around this issue a bit more?
Blanket statements, yes, something like that.

Also, some people like to use it as a kind of verbal "weapon", like "you are immoral", "I am more moral than you", haha.

And "this is moral" and "that is immoral". As if their opinion on what is moral were necessarily a compelling reason why we should do or not do something. Sometimes, they even speak in terms of "we" and I'm like "speak for yourself".

Then, there is the question of different systems of morals; Nietzsche coined the terms master- and slave-morality. The former is about "good" vs. "bad", and the latter is about "good" vs. "evil". I want to dissociate myself from the latter. I don't think in terms of evil. Cruel/nasty/malevolent, yes, but evil no, that belongs in the world of religion. Sometimes when they use the term "evil" they mean "sinister" or "twisted", and objectively, they mean something (thinking or action) they just cannot grasp. They can also speak of things like "monsters" when they mean, essentially, a human being who is/was different from themselves (in particular, they like to invoke Hitler). I'm getting side-tracked.

Also, I take issue with emotional self-flagellation, ie. feeling guilt or remorse as a result of conscience when having done something "immoral" (or "wrong"). I don't have that kind of conscience. I do have a super-ego that I've been trying to cultivate so as to make ideals/morals purely positive, ie. feeling "noble" (or similar) when I have lived up to my ideals, rather than feeling guilty when I've failed to do so. If you've done something you regret, there is no "undoing" the damage through emotional self-flagellation. If appropriate and possible, you could instead put the same effort into making up (amends, reparation) for what you've done wrong.

I hope that sheds some light on it.

-Albert.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
341 Posts
Can you clarify what you mean by "substance"?



I don't think ideals are "standard", it's more like morality is.

I think we measure people's virtuousness more by their actions than ideals.



I don't feel anything that I'd describe as a "sensation" regarding right/wrong.



I'd say it's the other way around: conscience/morals determine decisions.



I agree on that.



I don't need to reach further for ideals -- I am already too much of a perfectionist, and that is in fact one of the problems I need to resolve.

-Albert.
1.) Substance meaning composition. Ideals I'll explain in point 2, codes of honor are systems of ethics, which are the execution of morality.

2.) When I stay "standards", I don't expressly mean syndicated, I mean hallmarks. Ideals/virtues such as restraint, longsuffering, excellence, for example, are important when we gauge someone's actions. Their actions are how we understand their integrity, which is determined by how short we fall of these ideals. A man is murderous because he fails to appreciate the sanctity of life and acts in spite of that; a man is loving because he has sacrificed of himself for a worthy cause. So goes the paradigm.

3.)You did mention you were repulsed by Apple products. From what you provided, you seemed to indicate that Apple is symbolic of evil in all of its abuses.

4.)Yes, conscience and morality do help determine your decisions, among other things. The reason I included the vice-versa element of this is because of the concept of momentum. We can sear our consciences or expand them. Desensitization is an already known phenomenon, and it is through conviction that we can restore and expand them. Our actions additionally affect our thoughts, which affect our impulses; all of it is intertwined, even as a progression, we can change the entire system of our mind by tweaking a few elements of it. It's a feedback loop and I'm glad you stopped me so that I could further explain. You're an excellent learner.

5.) Glad you agree. Let's strive for the ultimate good.

6.) Yes, it ought to be resolved as we will fall short of ideals--that is what makes them the hallmarks that they are. You're very astute in recognizing perfectionism as more of a vice than as a means to virtue. What's most important is that you make substantial efforts in their cultivation as a life lived virtuously, is a life lived wisely, is a life lived righteously. In their pursuit, you will be made justified, which endows you with the ultimate virtue of excellence. We shouldn't be hard on ourselves, nor should be lax on what causes us to sin.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
198 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
1.) Substance meaning composition. Ideals I'll explain in point 2, codes of honor are systems of ethics, which are the execution of morality.
Are you saying a moral is an element of a code of honour or of ideals? Thus morals in the plural? Thus in other words, a moral is a rule? Which could be the moral of a story? And so, a system of ethics or ideals is in other words a ruleset? Or a set or system of principles?

But what to you mean by the "execution" of morality? An implementation?

2.) When I stay "standards", I don't expressly mean syndicated, I mean hallmarks. Ideals/virtues such as restraint, longsuffering, excellence, for example, are important when we gauge someone's actions. Their actions are how we understand their integrity, which is determined by how short we fall of these ideals.
Or from the other direction, how fully we live up to them?

A man is murderous because he fails to appreciate the sanctity of life and acts in spite of that; a man is loving because he has sacrificed of himself for a worthy cause. So goes the paradigm.
I won't argue with your examples.

3.)You did mention you were repulsed by Apple products. From what you provided, you seemed to indicate that Apple is symbolic of evil in all of its abuses.
Where did I mention this?

I use a few Apple products, and I like some of them for the most part. I do have complaints. There are Apple stupidities such as making new versions of software worse than the versions they replace. And long-standing idiocies like only one mouse button. Indeed the Apple laptops have no mouse button at all! Otherwise I might have purchased one. I have said at times, at least to myself, that I'm going to destroy GNU, Apple, and Microsoft, in that order. Or maybe it was Apple before GNU. That's just some silly ambitions I have, and after destroying them, I would build something good/better out of them.

I don't think I would go so far as to say they are symbolic of evil. And in any case, if I speak of evil, I am not really serious, but I use it as a term for things I particularly don't like, and which I don't want to justify. That is, more like religion than science.

4.)Yes, conscience and morality do help determine your decisions, among other things. The reason I included the vice-versa element of this is because of the concept of momentum. We can sear our consciences or expand them. Desensitization is an already known phenomenon, and it is through conviction that we can restore and expand them. Our actions additionally affect our thoughts, which affect our impulses; all of it is intertwined, even as a progression, we can change the entire system of our mind by tweaking a few elements of it. It's a feedback loop and I'm glad you stopped me so that I could further explain. You're an excellent learner.
Thanks, but again I feel you're claiming the opposite: that our actions affect our thoughts, but primarily, the thoughts and feelings would affect the choice of actions. Or maybe you are saying that this is part of a feedback loop, so that our thoughts determines out actions, but our actions help refine our thoughts.

As for conscience, I've said it elsewhere, but in short I have been working on eradicating the conscience in its typical sense (feeling guilt from doing something "wrong"), and establish a super-ego that is based only on reward -- feeling noble (or similar) when acting according to my ideals, especially so if it involves sacrifice on my part.

5.) Glad you agree. Let's strive for the ultimate good.
Sounds good.

6.) Yes, it ought to be resolved as we will fall short of ideals--that is what makes them the hallmarks that they are. You're very astute in recognizing perfectionism as more of a vice than as a means to virtue. What's most important is that you make substantial efforts in their cultivation as a life lived virtuously, is a life lived wisely, is a life lived righteously. In their pursuit, you will be made justified, which endows you with the ultimate virtue of excellence. We shouldn't be hard on ourselves, nor should be lax on what causes us to sin.
I don't deliberately cultivate ideals, but rather, my ideals evolve along with the rest of me.

I try to maintain my own understanding/views/opinions on what qualifies as sin or error.

-Albert.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
341 Posts
Are you saying a moral is an element of a code of honour or of ideals? Thus morals in the plural? Thus in other words, a moral is a rule? Which could be the moral of a story? And so, a system of ethics or ideals is in other words a ruleset? Or a set or system of principles?

But what to you mean by the "execution" of morality? An implementation?



Or from the other direction, how fully we live up to them?



I won't argue with your examples.



Where did I mention this?

I use a few Apple products, and I like some of them for the most part. I do have complaints. There are Apple stupidities such as making new versions of software worse than the versions they replace. And long-standing idiocies like only one mouse button. Indeed the Apple laptops have no mouse button at all! Otherwise I might have purchased one. I have said at times, at least to myself, that I'm going to destroy GNU, Apple, and Microsoft, in that order. Or maybe it was Apple before GNU. That's just some silly ambitions I have, and after destroying them, I would build something good/better out of them.

I don't think I would go so far as to say they are symbolic of evil. And in any case, if I speak of evil, I am not really serious, but I use it as a term for things I particularly don't like, and which I don't want to justify. That is, more like religion than science.



Thanks, but again I feel you're claiming the opposite: that our actions affect our thoughts, but primarily, the thoughts and feelings would affect the choice of actions. Or maybe you are saying that this is part of a feedback loop, so that our thoughts determines out actions, but our actions help refine our thoughts.

As for conscience, I've said it elsewhere, but in short I have been working on eradicating the conscience in its typical sense (feeling guilt from doing something "wrong"), and establish a super-ego that is based only on reward -- feeling noble (or similar) when acting according to my ideals, especially so if it involves sacrifice on my part.



Sounds good.



I don't deliberately cultivate ideals, but rather, my ideals evolve along with the rest of me.

I try to maintain my own understanding/views/opinions on what qualifies as sin or error.

-Albert.
Moral/the principle= Give to the poor
Ethic/the execution/doing the thing= The donation of things that would benefit the needy
Code of honor/system of ethicality= Setting aside a budget for giving, holding your charity to standards
Ideal/the end goal= Generosity/magnanimity/charity

Now, in living up to ideals...we seldom can, and not for long when we do; that's why they are ideals. But we can get ever closer. It takes knowledge of everything down to your minute actions and thoughts, it takes awareness of self, and trial and error. You'll need guidance--we all do, and we can only uncover more of the truth and more of what is virtuous through riding on the shoulders of giants; in that way, you'll spend less time reinventing the wheel, and more time charting unknown waters--especially as we enter into a turning point in human history where morality is regarded less and less.

As far as Apple is concerned, I addressed someone who was posing similar questions that had a disdain for Apple. I accidentally conflated that with you. My apologies.

Turning to conscience, I'm claiming all of it. Of course I agree with the position you hold, I'm merely stating that the opposite is another facet of the truth on this matter. If in one aspect there is a deviation, the entire system will shift--ever so slightly at first, but even a slight change of direction could end up taking you miles away from your originally projected course. You are very right to observe the primacy of thought over action. They do, in fact, have a greater bearing; I'm merely giving you a panoramic of the entire system. That's just my rampant Ne. Let's agree to agree, then.

In attempting to modify your super-ego, it is the polarity of guilt and that sense of nobility that allows you to feel one another. After a while, you forget the virtuous esteem that you hold yourself to (and attempt to abide by), and it's just another feeling since passed. The same with guilt; I've mentioned this phenomenon of desensitization in the past. We should also note that a combination of punishment and reward always attains the best result, even with people. It's healthier to be whole, guilt has been imparted to you for a reason. Many people make the mistake of wallowing in their guilt, and others fall victim to the notion that their degree of health is in proportion to how good they feel.

Returning to ideals, I can see why they evolve for you. From my perspective though, you come into awareness of them due to their transcendent, higher nature. You'll see a recurring trend in my thought where humanity is in fact, inherently flawed. Not by design, but certainly in their generation and stasis of becoming. This is contrasted from ideals, which are immutable, apart from man, and require a superhuman solution to attain. On a final note, sin most essentially is acts that distances us from the Good--that which is ultimately desirable. These ideals are aspects of the Good, and us--being the sinful beings that we are--have to commit a lifetime to such ends. It's very good to have your own understanding/views/opinions; just be ready to discern what does qualify as sin and error using tried and true wisdom as a basis and supplementation.
 

·
Registered
INTP or what?
Joined
·
13,921 Posts
Hi all,

This was originally part of another thread, but no-one replied there, and I also think this topic deserves its own thread.
----​

I have Fi, about as much as Ti, but the thing is, that many ENFPs speak a lot about morals and values and about doing what is "right". Now, we all like to do what's right from one or more points of view or considerations, but I just don't recognise this "moralising" in myself. I do not think in terms of morals. In fact I feel morals and ethics just boils down to opinion -- we all have them and they seem "right" from our own perspective.

Maybe I think in terms of ideals instead of morals, if that makes sense? I don't care whether it is unethical/immoral to steal. But it is against my ideals, and against my opinions about what is generally acceptable, not to say honourable or noble, behaviour. My ideals are a more personal thing than morals typically seem to be. They are based more on my personal feelings (eg. I would feel bad about being stolen from) and theories (eg. society would not function if too many persons were stealing), including sympathetic (compassionate) concerns (eg. I may think that another person would feel bad about being stolen from).

Or maybe this is just a matter of terminology? Another term I can think of is "code of honour".

Regards,
Albert.
Hmm. Lots of questions. Not sure how ethical it is, but I like to define my own terms just taking hints from others. I'd say morality for me is the policy I practice the way I do things. I try to do the right thing but that is not a policy. I'm okay with being expedient because that's the way it is. Ethics is more for group behavior. Ethics is the same as for the individual except is for a group.

An ideal is a target that optimizes morality or ethics. Or it's just the perfect form of something as when one tries to draw a circle by hand but falls short of perfection.

What else? Fi = one's own feelings about something? How deliberate is that supposed to be? When it's not very deliberate, it's just there. There is no morality if I'm not promoting it.

Ti? That's just internal thinking. I may like to think, but that could be about any ol' thing. There is no morality. I suppose it could be said it's a good idea to put a little thought into something before acting. If a group insists on that, it's an ethical policy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,183 Posts
Hi all,

I have Fi, about as much as Ti, but the thing is, that many ENFPs speak a lot about morals and values and about doing what is "right". Now, we all like to do what's right from one or more points of view or considerations, but I just don't recognise this "moralising" in myself. I do not think in terms of morals. In fact I feel morals and ethics just boils down to opinion -- we all have them and they seem "right" from our own perspective.

Maybe I think in terms of ideals instead of morals, if that makes sense? I don't care whether it is unethical/immoral to steal. But it is against my ideals, and against my opinions about what is generally acceptable, not to say honourable or noble, behaviour. My ideals are a more personal thing than morals typically seem to be. They are based more on my personal feelings (eg. I would feel bad about being stolen from) and theories (eg. society would not function if too many persons were stealing), including sympathetic (compassionate) concerns (eg. I may think that another person would feel bad about being stolen from).

Or maybe this is just a matter of terminology? Another term I can think of is "code of honour".

Regards,
Albert.

From how I see it- ethics is something that is group upon - moral controls a person decision In doing something- values is what we hold dear to us . Unsure if it’s fi- correlated . It’s not much of doing what is right for me but I do know that my views on ethics comes from within more so than social influences- I believe that Fi and Ti derived from within - just one is more likely not to go against their belief on morals /values vs one would follow what’s most logical .

What makes you think you use Fi out of curiosity. @Llyralen brought out a good point - Fi is putting self in one person place and see imagine how you /that person would react to a certain situation. For example- I don’t tell people what to do when they share feelings /thoughts with me unless they ask me for my opinion ~ bc I find it invasive when others advice me what to do when I’m opening up to them and also with the belief of only you can solve your own dilemma. I think that’s where my internal value stems from and I know that it’s more common for fi to talk of values ( though I don’t think it’s type related- we’re human beings )


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
198 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
Moral/the principle= Give to the poor
Ethic/the execution/doing the thing= The donation of things that would benefit the needy
Code of honor/system of ethicality= Setting aside a budget for giving, holding your charity to standards
Ideal/the end goal= Generosity/magnanimity/charity
So an ethic is a moral under execution?

Isn't setting aside a budget part of the execution?

You seem to have very definite ideas about these matters, including terminology. You must have given it a lot of thought.

Now, in living up to ideals...we seldom can, and not for long when we do; that's why they are ideals.
Certainly, if you strive for perfection -- but you don't have to.

For example, generosity is one of my ideals, but for me it is good enough to practise it in moderation; indeed, I specifically don't want to overdo it, in part because that would probably mean people would use me for it; moreover, I don't want to be more generous that I can readily afford; and I feel more generous to some than to others. In other words, ideals can have limitations and constraints.

But we can get ever closer. It takes knowledge of everything down to your minute actions and thoughts, it takes awareness of self, and trial and error. You'll need guidance--we all do, and we can only uncover more of the truth and more of what is virtuous through riding on the shoulders of giants; in that way, you'll spend less time reinventing the wheel, and more time charting unknown waters--especially as we enter into a turning point in human history where morality is regarded less and less.
The way you describe it, it sounds like you're making an awfully big deal of it. Why not just allow it to come naturally?

Can you clarify what you mean by trial and error in this context? Same thing about riding on the shoulders of giants.

It does not seem to me that morality is regarded less.

As far as Apple is concerned, I addressed someone who was posing similar questions that had a disdain for Apple. I accidentally conflated that with you. My apologies.
It's forgiven. Incidentally, you were actually somewhat close to the truth.

Turning to conscience, I'm claiming all of it. Of course I agree with the position you hold, I'm merely stating that the opposite is another facet of the truth on this matter. If in one aspect there is a deviation, the entire system will shift--ever so slightly at first, but even a slight change of direction could end up taking you miles away from your originally projected course.
Can you clarify this? Maybe an example?

In attempting to modify your super-ego, it is the polarity of guilt and that sense of nobility that allows you to feel one another.
The greater the contrast, the stronger the feeling will seem to be. Guilt to nobility is a very strong contrast, but you would not normally encounter this situation, ie. going straight from one pole to the other. Typically, you would go from feeling "normal" or "average" to feeling guilty or noble.

After a while, you forget the virtuous esteem that you hold yourself to (and attempt to abide by), and it's just another feeling since passed. The same with guilt; I've mentioned this phenomenon of desensitization in the past.
I agree we can get desensitised by experiencing the same thing often. Eventually it becomes "background noise".

We should also note that a combination of punishment and reward always attains the best result, even with people.
Many people make the mistake of wallowing in their guilt, and others fall victim to the notion that their degree of health is in proportion to how good they feel.
The idea behind my work on adapting my super-ego is to avoid emotional self-flagellation.

Within reason, feeling good is a particularly important aspect of mental health. However, conditions like mania are indicative of a mental disorder.

It's healthier to be whole, guilt has been imparted to you for a reason.
Actually, I was only mentioning guilt as part of a discussion of a typical/traditional super-ego, better known as a conscience. I do not myself feel guilt or remorse -- regret, sadness, and/or shame is the closest I get. I suppose I come very close if I feel both regret and sadness at the same time.

Returning to ideals, I can see why they evolve for you.
Can you elaborate a bit?

From my perspective though, you come into awareness of them due to their transcendent, higher nature.
You mean they "stand out" due to that nature?

You'll see a recurring trend in my thought where humanity is in fact, inherently flawed. Not by design, but certainly in their generation and stasis of becoming.
I don't agree the design isn't flawed. If it weren't, then humanity wouldn't have evolved to become so flawed.

Assuming for the purposes of this discussion, that humanity (and other species) were designed, I would say there were oversights in the design. Developments that were not foreseen at the time of the design. Errors of omission, and probably errors of commission.

This is contrasted from ideals, which are immutable, apart from man, and require a superhuman solution to attain.
I suppose a particular ideal is immutable, because if it were changed, it would be different ideal. I'm not sure this is what you meant.

On a final note, sin most essentially is acts that distances us from the Good--that which is ultimately desirable. These ideals are aspects of the Good, and us--being the sinful beings that we are--have to commit a lifetime to such ends. It's very good to have your own understanding/views/opinions; just be ready to discern what does qualify as sin and error using tried and true wisdom as a basis and supplementation.
Yes, I am sure many of my ideals/principles are based on wisdoms from outside of me, but in so being, they are effectively part of my own understanding/opinions.

-Albert.
 
1 - 20 of 42 Posts
Top