Amorality

[briochick]

I'm curious. Do you think it's possible for any type to be amoral or is it only limited to type. I say that because I've met several people in my life who have very limited motivation for being good, or law abiding in any form, or for not being selfish, but it doesn't neccessarily seem limited to type. Is this a psychological dysfunction?

Can someone explain?

 

[Savage Idealist]

Amorality is possible among every type, but more prevelant in some as opposed to others. ISFJ's and INFJ's both use Fe, which often adheres to shared societal values and social ethics. Both these types would have far less a chance of acting amorally unless mabye, thier actions are seen as amoral from a different cultural perspective. It is also important to consider that what is moral, and what is amoral does vary from culture to culture, thus the most moral ISFJ of INFJ may be considered a saint were they live, but scorned in other areas of the world. So classifying amorality as a psychological dysfunction seems rather incorrect.

 

[swordpath]

Completely unrelated to type.

 

[Moiety]

Not completely unrelated to type, imo. I'd rate NTPs as the most likely to be amoral. Just like I'd rate them as the most likely to be nihilistic.

 

[briochick]

Ok, then let me express this as "amorality within their own culture and society's expectations and values on right and wrong, behavior, and or morality." Well, isn't amorality a kind of intense selfcenteredness that the only person that matters is you, you essentially create yourself as a god to do what you please without...ah, the term I'm looking for is maybe sociopathy....?

 

[Moiety]

Ok, then let me express this as "amorality within their own culture and society's expectations and values on right and wrong, behavior, and or morality." Well, isn't amorality a kind of intense selfcenteredness that the only person that matters is you, you essentially create yourself as a god to do what you please without...ah, the term I'm looking for is maybe sociopathy....?

Amorality is not immorality. Immorality is disregard for morals and actions that reflect that. Immoral people often know they are doing wrong and/or thing they are doing right. They have an opinion on where it stands in the moral spectrum. Amorality is the absence of a moral standard altogether. Amoral people don't even recognize it as being wrong. Or right for that matter.

 

[briochick]

Amorality is not immorality. Immorality is disregard for morals and actions that reflect that. Immoral people often know they are doing wrong and/or thing they are doing right. They have an opinion on where it stands in the moral spectrum. Amorality is the absence of a moral standard altogether. Amoral people don't even recognize it as being wrong. Or right for that matter.

I guess when I use the term immoral I think of someone who sleeps around, or does drugs, or cheats on a spouse, and when I use the term amoral I think "without a sense of morality whatsoever. Without guilt."

Like these:
"Common Sociopaths

These individuals are created by poor parenting and develop a lack of remorse, shame and consistently break the rules of society.

Alienated Sociopaths

These individuals, again created through poor socialization, do not develop the capacity to love or form attachments with others. This creates a person that lacks empathy and can be quite callous with victims. Within the Alienated Type are four further subtypes.

Disaffiliated Type

Individuals of this subtype develop antisocial traits and an inability to relate emotionally to others, which affects relationships on a global level.

Disempathetic Type

Although these individuals are capable of demonstrating affection and attachments to relatives, friends, or spouses, they are prone to relate to others as objects. This serves a protective function due to childhood experiences of trauma, which can be viewed as being dissociative in nature and a form of desensitization.

Hostile Type

A hostile sociopath is an angry, resentful, and aggressive person that purposefully rejects the social norms and mores of society and displays antisocial and traditional psychopathic traits as a result of their hostile beliefs.

Cheated Type

Much like the hostile type, these individuals are hostile, antisocial and reject the norms and mores of society, but for different reasons. These individuals feel rejected by society due to real or perceived inadequacies, most likely learned through experiences with an abusive parent, which in later life create specific beliefs that rules do not apply to them because they have been wronged by others.

Aggressive Sociopaths

These are dangerous individuals that enjoy hurting others and can often be described as sadistic. Dominance and control are at the heart of their psychological needs, which are fulfilled by developing and maintaining traditional psychopathic traits as a means to obtain, degrade, hurt and sometimes kill victims"

 

[Totenkindly]

Amorality is possible among every type, but more prevelant in some as opposed to others. ISFJ's and INFJ's both use Fe, which often adheres to shared societal values and social ethics. Both these types would have far less a chance of acting amorally unless mabye, thier actions are seen as amoral from a different cultural perspective. It is also important to consider that what is moral, and what is amoral does vary from culture to culture, thus the most moral ISFJ of INFJ may be considered a saint were they live, but scorned in other areas of the world. So classifying amorality as a psychological dysfunction seems rather incorrect.

Not completely unrelated to type, imo. I'd rate NTPs as the most likely to be amoral. Just like I'd rate them as the most likely to be nihilistic.

Yes, both of those.

I don't think type DETERMINES (a)morality, but it definitely overlaps it. I know there are certain types of existentialist POVs that are part of my INTP-style thinking that the more socially invested types don't get... even the question of whether life matters inherently. Many people just assert it does and are horrified with the possibility it might not, but they don't examine the philosophical arguments (can't even see the POINT in examining them) and thus see why I've had to struggle with that. Same goes for moral codes.

(I'm Neutral Good, btw. ... or maybe I'm lying and don't care.)

 

[Snow Turtle]

I'd find it extremely hard pressed to be amoral. You'd essentially have no value judgements on certain situations? Pure amorality defininitely sounds difficult to maintain....

Why does it remind me of indifference?

 

[Little_Sticks]

Disaffiliated Type

Individuals of this subtype develop antisocial traits and an inability to relate emotionally to others, which affects relationships on a global level.

Maybe. But this could also be related to temperament and the 'develop antisocial traits' part could just be the person's way of dealing with others expecting them to conform to things that make them despondent or miserable. Could you elaborate more on what you mean?

Disempathetic Type

Although these individuals are capable of demonstrating affection and attachments to relatives, friends, or spouses, they are prone to relate to others as objects. This serves a protective function due to childhood experiences of trauma, which can be viewed as being dissociative in nature and a form of desensitization.

Not sure I agree with this at all. If someone is using this as a protective mask, then it becomes more of a dissociative disorder then a question of sociopathy. Also, is it really constructive to label a traumatized person as defective in the way done here? People deal with trauma in various ways; there is no agreed upon consensus for what is appropriate and it becomes open to whether someone wants to make a judgement about how that person handled their situation or give them the benefit-of-the-doubt and assume they did what they thought was best for them-self and start off with that as a fact. Practically though, if your goal is to break down the protective shell, you have to show the person with actions and time of why they don't need such a shell - and this requires trust which won't come about by first passing judgement with a negatively connotative label; I think the benefit-of-the-doubt works best, but you also have to actually believe that and be happy with the little progress you might only get. Know what I mean? The idea of accepting someone for who they are and not expecting them to change to be accepted...

And morals are practically relative to how people treat one another. If someone is in an overall threatening survival environment, it makes sense that they would appear to be devoid of morals compared to someone that seeks fairness and has no reason to have seemingly ill-will with others. We affect and spread to one another our projections, although I guess you could say a full-fledged genetically genuine sociopath/psychopath will become a moral depriving enabler of other people if not properly put in places where their naturally moral voids can become useful, such as war, law, and cut-throat business.

 

[briochick]

I find it very hard to be amoral as well. But the issue is more, could any type be changed to the point where the right and wrong of society did not impact them much or at all, nor did the pain of other people? Or, are only some types capable of that?