Personality Cafe banner
1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,610 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Some questions for INTPs

1) Do you see the law as an obstacle for your autonomy?

2) In the event where the law did not exist for all people, do you think you would have autonomy?

3) In the event where the law did not exist for you but remained for all other people, do you think you would have autonomy?

4) Do you believe all people to be innately benevolent?

5) Do you believe yourself to be innately benevolent?


6) Do you make a distinction between the law and justice?

7) How do you think legally binding laws generally come to be?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
446 Posts
1.) No. Not really. I have my own rules, they come first before society rules. I have not run into a situation where the two have clashed really.

2.) Yes.

3.) ... Yes.

4.) Not really no.

5.) I am self-serving (selfish.), I hold my own rules to be more important than societies rules, I am a sometimes passive bystander.
I don't think so.

6.) Justice.. I have been taught that means equal application of the law. Do I really believe that the application is equal.. No, no I don't. Which means I view laws as not applied equally, which means laws =/= just. Does not the sheer fact that lawyers (and paralegals etc.) exist not mean that we are trying to actively bend/go around the law?

7.) Well meaning majority agreeing upon things that - at the time - make sense to the majority.

(I am correct in using the definition "self-ruling" as autonomous right?)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
915 Posts
1) Do you see the law as an obstacle for your autonomy?

It is not the law, it is the social system as a complex mechanism which is really limiting.

2) In the event where the law did not exist for all people, do you think you would have autonomy?
Hard to tell, depends on circumstances of the specific situation.

3) In the event where the law did not exist for you but remained for all other people, do you think you would have autonomy?

Huh? What is your definition of autonomy? When somebody excludes you from the law you are in trouble...

4) Do you believe all people to be innately benevolent?

No people are easily manipulated and programmed into what exactly you need... It is called education, brainwashing, propaganda.

5) Do you believe yourself to be innately benevolent?

Yep, I am able to cope with all the people giving them freedom and requiring the same freedom from them...

6) Do you make a distinction between the law and justice?

Yep, justice is an abstract concept, law is the poor realization of the abstract concept. There are loopholes, there are unfair results... Justice would be objective, law is not.

7) How do you think legally binding laws generally come to be?

Tradition that was later written.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,468 Posts
1) Do you see the law as an obstacle for your autonomy?
No.

2) In the event where the law did not exist for all people, do you think you would have autonomy?
No.

3) In the event where the law did not exist for you but remained for all other people, do you think you would have autonomy?
Why wouldn't I?

4) Do you believe all people to be innately benevolent?
No.

5) Do you believe yourself to be innately benevolent?
No.

6) Do you make a distinction between the law and justice?
Yes.

7) How do you think legally binding laws generally come to be?
Bad shit happens, law come in to place to help prevent it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
421 Posts
Some questions for INTPs

1) Do you see the law as an obstacle for your autonomy?
2) In the event where the law did not exist for all people, do you think you would have autonomy?
3) In the event where the law did not exist for you but remained for all other people, do you think you would have autonomy?
4) Do you believe all people to be innately benevolent?
5) Do you believe yourself to be innately benevolent?
6) Do you make a distinction between the law and justice?
7) How do you think legally binding laws generally come to be?
1. No, I view it as something that enables me to avoid living in fear of my life. Essentially a system of incentives.
2. Existentially speaking, we are all free. I would act on my judgement, other people would act on their judgement.
3. See 2.
4. Yes, apart from psychopaths. But the degree of benevolence varies from person to person. And from time to time in one person.
5. See 4.
6. Obviously. Otherwise the law would never need to be changed.
7. Generally on the back of technocratic recommendation, mixed with a liberal amount of realpolitik and popular pandering. Ideological differences are so Twentieth-century.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,796 Posts
1) depends on the law. Some of them are. Take the law that requires me to wear a motorcycle helmet. or the law that forbids me from ordering a superlarge soda. If I want a huge soda, I should be allowed to get one. If I want to joyride down the highway on a motorcycle and feel the wind in my hair, I should be able to.

2)I'm not sure I understand your question. There will always be law. Whether the law comes from the government, the church, or the biggest kid in the school yard. Even if there was no law, it would still be a law. Saying there are no laws is like a law forbiding the making of laws. Maybe I want to make a law?

3) Assuming I was exempt from every possible law (whatever the source), I would be free to do whatever I want to do within the boundaries of what others are allowed to do. This question is easy to over think. A simple answer would be yes. the overthought answer is yes and no. Take for example that I want to go and do something illegal. I can't really think of a good example not being a lawyer. But I can imagine a situation where I would legally be allowed to do something while someone else was legally required to stop me... It would argue in a circle and I would never be able to do it.

4)No

5)No

6)yes. for example, legally, if I run into the back of somebody, I am at fault. Even if that person cut me off. and is clearly at fault... I am still the one who has to pay. Or for some crimes, the law does not punish justly. I am sure you all can think of some specific ones that I don't have to list them.

7)Laws come to be the same way they do today. A majority of people see an issue and they attempt to dissuade others from committing the issue by making it a punishable offense.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
750 Posts
1) Sometimes. I'm fine following laws that match up with my beliefs. Otherwise, I tend to ignore them.

2) Laws only impede your autonomy if you choose to follow them.

3) See #2.

4) No. Benevolence and malevolence are meaningless terms. People will innately act in their own self-interest, whatever form that may take.

5) See #4.

6) Yes. Laws are for control, justice is a construct to satisfy a person(s) emotional response to an action.

7) People were put in charge. They wanted to remain in charge. So they created laws to keep everyone else following a certain way of life that allows them to maintain control.
 

·
Maid of Time
549 sx/sp
Joined
·
14,749 Posts
1) Do you see the law as an obstacle for your autonomy?

Not really. My day-to-day is on the micro level, the laws impact people on the broader level, and typically I don't really have a desire to do much that would be considered an obvious violation of law, except maybe speed.

2) In the event where the law did not exist for all people, do you think you would have autonomy?

Well, there would be the possibility that someone would interfere with my life (stealing my car, physical abuse, taking things of mine, etc.) whereas now they do not, since there is punishment for such things if caught.

3) In the event where the law did not exist for you but remained for all other people, do you think you would have autonomy?

My life would pretty much be like it is now.

4) Do you believe all people to be innately benevolent?

I believe most people aren't actively out to get others, but we do all differ to the degree that we're willing to disadvantage another for our own gain.

5) Do you believe yourself to be innately benevolent?

In general, I don't like to hurt or disadvantage others, especially if I expect them to not hurt or disadvantage me.

6) Do you make a distinction between the law and justice?

The law regulates behavior on the broad scale and tries to keep a social structure intact in order to keep life efficient and overall "fair" for everyone, although it depends who is creating the laws as to whether this occurs or not. I think justice is more about balance a specific action with a specific outcome. For example, a law in order to apply to everyone might not end up being just for a particular situation. (For example, the Casey Anthony trial. The laws regarding reasonable doubt make sense, but many people feel justice was not done.)

7) How do you think legally binding laws generally come to be?

People in power create and instill laws that satisfy their own personal view of the world. Some laws might be more representative of the general public than another, and some laws that are enacted by the general public aren't necessarily just.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,225 Posts
1) Do you see the law as an obstacle for your autonomy?
Yes and no. The law in itself not so much as weird people that in their butthurt resort to it as a crutch. Unfortunately personal impression/emotional state of the individual seems to count in many cases rather than any true object measuring.

2) In the event where the law did not exist for all people, do you think you would have autonomy?
3) In the event where the law did not exist for you but remained for all other people, do you think you would have autonomy?
The law doesn't restrict me or prevents me from doing things I'd like to do, whether they're labeled legal or illegal. As such I don't see it as a contributor to autonomy or individual freedom for that matter. In fact, whoever is truly free is likely to not be bound by any laws anyway - yet is likely to still make the 'correct' choices and not break the law, whether or not it was in place.



4) Do you believe all people to be innately benevolent?
Quite so, but we do a whole lot more for moving away from it than getting there. As such getting there is perhaps the biggest accomplishment a human being can archive in their life-time.

5) Do you believe yourself to be innately benevolent?
Believe? Not so much than knowing. That knowledge however also entails that I know I'm not done yet and that I'm quite ways away from my true potential. This makes me better than some/most and worse than others.

6) Do you make a distinction between the law and justice?
Yes.

7) How do you think legally binding laws generally come to be?
Entitlement, intolerance and majority.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,350 Posts
1) Do you see the law as an obstacle for your autonomy?
Not much. I don't tend to want to do anything that would break the law. Rules are another matter, but I tend to work around them instead.

2) In the event where the law did not exist for all people, do you think you would have autonomy?
Probably, I don't see why not. Unless you're talking about the perception of autonomy as apart from everything else. But then, it still would be, really.

3) In the event where the law did not exist for you but remained for all other people, do you think you would have autonomy?
Yes, I'd guess so.

4) Do you believe all people to be innately benevolent?
Benevolent is too strong a word. I don't believe in good or evil, because they'd only be my personal interpretations, so people are neither good nor bad. They're people.

5) Do you believe yourself to be innately benevolent?
No.

6) Do you make a distinction between the law and justice?
Yes. The law doesn't achieve justice all the time.

7) How do you think legally binding laws generally come to be?
Someone high up doesn't like something, then gets people on their side until they can pass a law.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
766 Posts
1) Do you see the law as an obstacle for your autonomy?
Yes. Murder of children is an act where my local laws and my morals are in sync, but there's a lot where it isn't.

2) In the event where the law did not exist for all people, do you think you would have autonomy?
The law does not exist for all people...

3) In the event where the law did not exist for you but remained for all other people, do you think you would have autonomy?
Social stigma would still be in the way of some things.

4) Do you believe all people to be innately benevolent?
No.

5) Do you believe yourself to be innately benevolent?
No. More than some, but in a black a white scale, no.

6) Do you make a distinction between the law and justice?
Yes. Big time.

7) How do you think legally binding laws generally come to be?
Some dude with power wanted to manifest his power.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
386 Posts
1) In a sense, but a necessary one. Like if there was no law, you'd start to see things erode. You see drunk drivers operating motor vehicles in an unsafe way, endangering others more than themselves just for a bit of convenience. You also would have major corporations going nuts by taking advantage of the lack of laws. Laws are a necessary part of a social contract.

3) No, because everyone else would be limited, and also because with no checks on if what I'm doing is sane there literally no way this can end up good.

2) -- only as a more egregious extension of 3). This sort of society would collapse immediately.

4) No, everyone has a few things wrong with them. No one's perfect.

5) See 4.

6) Yes. The law is enforcement of rules. Justice is correct enforcement of rules.

7) There are too many different possible answers for this to give a concise one, sorry.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
1. Yes.

2. Yes.

3. I'm not sure, but I'm leaning towards yes.

4. No

5. Yes.

6. Yes. Just because something is against the law does not mean it's wrong.

7. As far as US laws go, I think they were originally to help the people, but in the present, there are too many laws that really have no business being laws.
 

·
Registered
BEAR
Joined
·
1,955 Posts
1) Do you see the law as an obstacle for your autonomy?

Not particularly. I think it has the potential to be an obstacle in years to come, but right now the law is alright.

2) In the event where the law did not exist for all people, do you think you would have autonomy?

No. Well, yes, but no. I would, but it'd be too chaotic for me to enjoy that.

3) In the event where the law did not exist for you but remained for all other people, do you think you would have autonomy?

No. What use is being above the law if I'm the only one?

4) Do you believe all people to be innately benevolent?


No, I think all people are innately people, and benevolent is a subjective term made by people for people.In other words, we can't extrapolate how people "innately" are.
5) Do you believe yourself to be innately benevolent?

No. I am also innately a person. I may be defined as benevolent, but innately I just am.

6) Do you make a distinction between the law and justice?

Yes.

7) How do you think legally binding laws generally come to be?

People came of power over people, and decided to create laws to keep their power.
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top