Personality Cafe banner

21 - 40 of 42 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
200 Posts
Discussion Starter #22
Morals is a set of habits which are consistent with one's urge of living.
Habits that are consistent with one's lust for living?

The more an organism is moral, the more it is optimized hence stereotypical. There are only many ways to fail.
Depends on what you mean by optimised. Being a stereotype is in not in any way optimal as I see it. If you're going to fail, you should at least try to fail creatively.

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.
I believe morals are in the eye of the beholder. From all perspectives.

Reality check: the quicker you age the harder you fail.
If you think dying is necessarily a failure. I don't, I think it is more like starting something new.

-Albert.
 

·
exploring space
ENFP
Joined
·
9,122 Posts
Can you elaborate, perhaps with examples?

I agree that morals are not purely F.

-Albert.
Yea I think for example a common Feeler perspective is to favor mercy, forgiveness, or just agreeableness, because of the more empathetic & agreeable nature but sometimes this can be detrimental in the long run, i.e. allowing people with bad behaviors to persist.
T may produce the opposite of F. A common S perspective is to just enjoy the moment and not care about consequences, I don't think I need to elaborate on this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
200 Posts
Discussion Starter #25
Yea I think for example a common Feeler perspective is to favor mercy, forgiveness, or just agreeableness, because of the more empathetic & agreeable nature ...
That is one of the typical questions in many 4-letter type tests (I mean as opposed to tests that try to test for functions). I always answer that in the F way, so that is a reason why I get F results.

T may produce the opposite of F.
Impersonal, one-size-fits-all, kind of "justice". That's the T alternative of the same question. So, how could one avoid choosing the other option?

A common S perspective is to just enjoy the moment and not care about consequences, I don't think I need to elaborate on this.
Makes sense if you mean SP.

-Albert.
 

·
exploring space
ENFP
Joined
·
9,122 Posts
Impersonal, one-size-fits-all, kind of "justice". That's the T alternative of the same question. So, how could one avoid choosing the other option?
sometimes it's the better way to deal with a situation, or a mix of both is necessary


Makes sense if you mean SP.

-Albert.
it's true for SJs too, but it manifests a bit differently in behaviors, for example my SJ mother (and aunt) will give cookies and chocolate to my 2 year old nephew to win his favor or calm him down.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,623 Posts
Habits that are consistent with one's lust for living?
Urge.

Depends on what you mean by optimised. Being a stereotype is in not in any way optimal as I see it. If you're going to fail, you should at least try to fail creatively.
I already set the picture : Morally optimized. Hence stereotypical of a morally consistent object.

I believe morals are in the eye of the beholder. From all perspectives.
No need to repeat it twice, I was not expecting you to change your mind.

If you think dying is necessarily a failure. I don't, I think it is more like starting something new.
Death is literally the failure of life.
 

·
Registered
ENFP-A - 2w3 - JEEP
Joined
·
5,153 Posts
Are we using ethics interchangeably or the actual meaning of what both morality and ethics mean? They are as I've been zinged in the past, two distinct words. I just need to know which version we're going with before I throw my two cents in. It feels like ethics is being interchangeable with morality in this scenario.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
200 Posts
Discussion Starter #29
Or, to say the least, a demi-urge.

I already set the picture : Morally optimized. Hence stereotypical of a morally consistent object.
If the stereotype lies in being morally optimised, then yes, obviously. What that is, however, I have no idea.

Death is literally the failure of life.
Death as we typically mean it, is the end (or the failure) of a particular incorporation (of body and spirit). It is not the failure of life itself, but indeed the release of life from its habitual material confines.

-Albert.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
200 Posts
Discussion Starter #30
Are we using ethics interchangeably or the actual meaning of what both morality and ethics mean? They are as I've been zinged in the past, two distinct words. I just need to know which version we're going with before I throw my two cents in. It feels like ethics is being interchangeable with morality in this scenario.
See the posts by MonarK for one, apparently extensively thought out, version of terminology.

In practice, I see "ethical" and "moral" used interchangeably a lot.

-Albert.
 

·
Registered
ENFP-A - 2w3 - JEEP
Joined
·
5,153 Posts
See the posts by MonarK for one, apparently extensively thought out, version of terminology.

In practice, I see "ethical" and "moral" used interchangeably a lot.

-Albert.
I would like to know which version is being used. The intent of the user is very important. As I've observed from others in this thread version one is being used.

1. The interchangeable one where both words are of equal value. As you stated a lot of people use this version without intending it. I was one of those and someone won points in a debate against me because of that flaw. If it's this version then morality or ethics is something all types use because we are a social species and objectively can assume laws will be produced from our inert behavior as such a species however each social construct and even individual can subjectively bend those rules to be of the norm for the period in time. All types are of equal value here because all are humans.

2. Where each word has its own meaning. While they are sometimes used interchangeably, they are different: ethics refer to rules provided by an external source, e.g., codes of conduct in workplaces or principles in religions. The group's laws or social construct. Morals refer to an individual's own principles regarding right and wrong. In this case yes Fi is high in Morals, Fe would then be high in Ethics.

The intent of another sentient life is a very important perimeter to establish when communicating.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,623 Posts
Death as we typically mean it, is the end (or the failure) of a particular incorporation (of body and spirit). It is not the failure of life itself, but indeed the release of life from its habitual material confines.
Life as described by this language is a material object. Directly rooted in proto-germanic : body. What happens outside of a body is not life. Incidentally, demi-urge makes no semantic sense whatsoever. An urge is a compelling force, it cannot be half of what it is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
200 Posts
Discussion Starter #33
Life as described by this language is a material object. Directly rooted in proto-germanic : body.
Yes, language is laden with historical baggage.

What happens outside of a body is not life.
So call it "consciousness" or whatever makes you happy.

Incidentally, demi-urge makes no semantic sense whatsoever. An urge is a compelling force, it cannot be half of what it is.
What if you cut it in two with Occam's razor?

It was supposed to be fun, not sensible.

-Albert.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
341 Posts
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.
Yeah, it could be argued that it's more ethics. The principle that I'm trying to get at is that code of honor are macro-level systems of ethics.

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.
Sure. Flowery speech aside, the natural component to all of this is that as you learn and explore, your mind will process all of it and come to its own conclusions. When putting these conclusions to the test, this is the trial-and-error aspect. This is where you receive feedback from the outside world in your ethics and systems of ethics. The opinions of others, the conclusions of your actions, and important above all else--the authenticity of your actions in relation to your morals and ideals.

Riding the shoulders of giants is just a way of saying that you can benefit in learning from others who have delved into your topics of interest in the past. It saves time, as you don't have to reinvent the wheel.

On a side note, ideals are at the level of perfection and don't quite have restraints, because they become vices when in deficits and excesses alike. Returning to charity, you're stingy if you lack charity, but too much of it is abnegation. I feel as though post-modern thought, as pervasive as it is in influence (even though it isn't necessarily popular), has worked to negate the value of everything we've covered in this discussion. The decline of institutions that also promoted even basic morality (most typically religious ones) has also caused less interest in the matter. It's another rabbit hole in and of itself, and one not too relevant to this discussion though.

Can you elaborate a bit?
Just a remark in coming to understand your view of morals in relation to the individual. Not much to say on that.

Can you clarify this? Maybe an example?
Take a serial killer for instance, since they're so popular. Normally, there is something inherently troubled about them, or something pushes them to kill a human the first time. Whatever the case, something has to void the sanctity of human life before their eyes; the most absolute means is that first kill. No matter their origin, serial killers most commonly murder thereafter for the thrill of it; they have transcended a forbidden threshold, and they require increasingly violent and vile acts in order to satisfy their urges. Albeit an extreme example, this is a great picture of the feedback loop that I have discussed.

You mean they "stand out" due to that nature?
Yes, they stand out.

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.
Ironic as it is, the answer is self-inflicted sabotage. That, and while I'll maintain that the design is perfect, the actual construction is another affair entirely. We've adapted to become flawed, and in some senses regressed, and others, evolved over the course of time. All of this though would segue into more of a theistic discussion, which is relevant to morality.

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.
By nature, ideals (as I've defined them) are perfect. To change them would make them lose the value of being perfect, but to be sure, I'd like to know what you have in mind for changing them into another ideal.

Thanks for the shoutout @nptype, and I do hope that the thread comes to an understanding of each other's terminology. There's plenty of different ideas being thrown around, and whether or not we have a common lexicon, it would be a shame if anything's overlooked.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
192 Posts
All of us have ethics because most of us belong within a society. Some of us have our own internal moral compass that might go against the grain of laws present. This doesn't mean we don't know the basics of right from wrong. I have found that each ENFP has a unique set of strong morals, my wife refers to them as her hit-cards. These hit-cards are unique to each ENFP because of their Fi, which values authenticity and individuality.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
200 Posts
Discussion Starter #36
Take a serial killer for instance, since they're so popular. Normally, there is something inherently troubled about them, or something pushes them to kill a human the first time. Whatever the case, something has to void the sanctity of human life before their eyes; the most absolute means is that first kill.
I don't think it is necessarily a matter of sancitity of human life. Taking myself as an example, if I could just push a button to have anyone killed, and there were no risk of getting caught, there are a few people I would kill without compunction. In part I would see that as making the world a better place, so morally it would seem like a "good" deed, because I would be "ridding" the world of something (someone) bad, a pest. So, the reason I haven't killed lies elsewhere; one issue is the practical considerations.

No matter their origin, serial killers most commonly murder thereafter for the thrill of it; they have transcended a forbidden threshold, and they require increasingly violent and vile acts in order to satisfy their urges. Albeit an extreme example, this is a great picture of the feedback loop that I have discussed.
I think I get it.

Ironic as it is, the answer is self-inflicted sabotage. That, and while I'll maintain that the design is perfect, the actual construction is another affair entirely. We've adapted to become flawed, and in some senses regressed, and others, evolved over the course of time. All of this though would segue into more of a theistic discussion, which is relevant to morality.
If the design is perfect, why is the construction not?

Yes. Theism and religion is traditionally closely related to morality.

By nature, ideals (as I've defined them) are perfect. To change them would make them lose the value of being perfect, but to be sure, I'd like to know what you have in mind for changing them into another ideal.
I didn't have anything in particular in mind, but let's say an ideal is "idealise God" and then you change it so that it becomes "idealise the devil", or you change the same ideal to "malign God".

-Albert.
 

·
Registered
ISTP
Joined
·
1,203 Posts
The point is not the fact that any reasonable person behaves as a reasonable person (i.e., is considerate in their actions, the consequence of acting, more or less, morally), though. The fact that it's a tautology already shows there's not much to see there. The relevant differences are the edge cases -- when some people know right from wrong, but others don't, not anymore. Also the degree of conviction. And the source of it.


Someone asked about examples. I said there aren't much IRL; I guess Corona is one, even if still abstract: I am not, but were I in a position of responsibility, I wouldn't know what the right thing to do is. How do you divide a limited resource between a potentially unlimited group of people? How do you factor other aspects into it -- the economic cost of shutdowns, say; ultimately, the existence of the state, which can't endure without economy indefinitely? A life can't be assigned a value, but what if by refusing to do so, you already did, just in a different way?

Some people have instinctive, very clear opinions. I posit that T(P) is not often that; for good and ill, there's all those complex tiny individual pieces that all are considered, leading to muddled, confusing answer full of qualifiers, and because of the nature of its base -- reasoning -- also eternally doubtful, unsure whether a critical piece perhaps was overlooked or weighed wrongly, leading to catastrophe.

One who decides based on instinctive knowledge of right and wrong has the solace of having done the right thing, even if the results are terrible. One who tries to decide by forecasting the outcome runs the risk of facing nothing but destruction when the best I could do turns out to be just not good enough, and even when it works out, facing the doubt of a hypothetical better as the enemy of the achieved good.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,566 Posts
@Northern Lights. My doctor co-workers tell me they are doing more deliberating about each patient than they ever have before. It’s not easy work. Also if it’s not COVID then you would use different drugs. Our tests are taking 2-3 days to return. It’s all so not easy now. Big things as you talked about and also just stupid little things. There is deliberation just to do normal stupid things. Today I touched a package at the store that I decided I didn’t want to buy and felt guilty for touching it. Just everything. What you talked about with short and long term and freaking everything. By the way, see my predictions thread in the NF forum, if you don’t mind and have the time. I wouldn’t mind if you copied and pasted what you just wrote to there. It’s exactly the kind of post I was hoping everyone would discuss in that thread.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
200 Posts
Discussion Starter #39
A life can't be assigned a value, ...
Why not?

Back when there was slavery, they put a price on a person in terms of money. So it is clearly possible.

I don't value people in terms of money, but I do value them in terms of how much I like (or even love) them. Thus different people have different value to me.

There's no one-size-fits-all for me, it all depends on the circumstances.

-Albert.
 

·
Registered
ENFP
Joined
·
4,195 Posts
Morals and ethics to me stems from:
1) Congruence- Can I live with myself based on the decisions I did or did not do within reason?
2) Limitations- I understand certain conditions exist- certain things in life are really just out of our hands. I can’t save the world (nor do I care for dogma).
3) Best Case Scenario- Am I choosing to apply the best case scenario in my mind meanwhile, preparing for the worst case scenario.
4) Long-Term Potentiality- How will my choices play out both short, and more importantly, long-term.
5) Clarity- Am I seeing the decisions I make from a perspective of clarity? Or is it clouded by others’ viewpoints?

Ne helps me to see various options. Fi allows me to solidify those choices by knowing I stood by something that makes life worth living.

I’d rather die than to lie to myself. And I’m NOT afraid to die. Kill me if you want to, but I sure as hell will never betray my own personal values and code of conduct.

And #1: Face Our Problems Head On!!
There’s no point in running away from our problems.

And most of all, SHIELD YOUR ENERGY: Be discerning and at the same time go with the flow- don’t allow external influences to jeopardize your sense of sounding (dignity, personhood, integrity).

Fi allows us to maintain a sense of home. Ne guards us from get-go!
 
21 - 40 of 42 Posts
Top