User Tag List

First 3456 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 59

  1. #41
    Senior Member King sns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Enneagram
    6w7 sp/sx
    Socionics
    IEE
    Posts
    6,748

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Coffee is good.

    I just bawlk at relativism, particularly when its presented as a fact, Chesterton totally tore most of the Nietzsche lite which has since become popular to pieces in a very simple argument in a book entitled orthodoxy, he suggested that it was moral cowardice to suggest such a thing as beyond good and evil was possible, you were either extra good or extra evil but it was/is one of those definitive things its impossible to do without.

    I dont know what it is that makes good people blame authority or suspiscious of dichotomies like this right away, perhaps its a deep down hope that Socrates was right and that no one knowingly does harm or evil and that the only evil is really ignorance of the good but it bothers me and its why I tend to retort like that. Often its not something which has been thought out that much and is just thrown out with expectations of acceptance or a kind of easily knocked down moral outrage.
    And that's the God Damned Truth in a God Damned nutshell. Got that @Jaguar? (Sorry, I won't let you live that one down, I love that post. I would respond, but want @Lord Guess to explain their POV first.
    06/13 10:51:03 five sounds: you!!!
    06/13 10:51:08 shortnsweet: no you!!
    06/13 10:51:12 shortnsweet: go do your things and my things too!
    06/13 10:51:23 five sounds: oh hell naw
    06/13 10:51:55 shortnsweet: !!!!
    06/13 10:51:57 shortnsweet: (cries)
    06/13 10:52:19 RiftsWRX: You two are like furbies stuck in a shoe box

    My Nohari
    My Johari
    by sns.

  2. #42
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,653

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shortnsweet View Post
    And that's the God Damned Truth in a God Damned nutshell. Got that @Jaguar? (Sorry, I won't let you live that one down, I love that post. I would respond, but want @Lord Guess to explain their POV first.
    I dont need to live that down, I love that post.

  3. #43
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    I prefer deontology but there are instances where the path to Hell is paved with good intentions. Those intentions, in particular, are held up by corroded principles.

    The Golden Rule reverses the all too human tendency to love no one. As a rule, it should be taken to heart, not in the more common application of damning yourself to raise others above you, or the twisted way of loving yourself more than your neighbor. Rather, we only love others once we love ourselves. Resenting others proceeds from not loving yourself.

    The silver rule, which is to treat others respectively, is a tricky thing to me because people have different standards. For instance, while I might prefer to be left alone in a time of crisis, my neighbor may want comfort. It becomes evident to me that I care a bit too much about the consequences and also that I am a bit selfish in trying to determine peoples' happiness in such a particular way. Sure, that sounds screwy. You might think that neglecting another's individual taste would be selfish, but it is not. Rather, it is prideful to assume that you can even know such a thing, or that you can even direct it as though the other was a puppet. Even if you prefer to pander to another's individual taste, you must confront the inescapable truth that it is your taste to pander to others, and perhaps this means that you have no definite taste to begin with. If you define your taste by another's, then you might as well deny any responsibility for your own intentions. So I call bullshit.

    My person taste is that I never want to be controlled or have my choices deliberately limited. While I'm free to pick among them, I'd rather not be dropped in a rat maze to be blinded to a convenient or moral course of action. That's how I try to treat others in return.

  4. #44
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shortnsweet View Post
    I work around a bunch of ethical issues and with a lot of different types. It got me thinking about what types may be inclined to think that the end justifies the means or visa versa.
    Ethics are feeling-based judgements so all the other functions don't come into it.

    ends justify means - extroverted feeling (do whatever is expedient)
    means justify ends - introverted feeling (do "the right thing" irrespective of consequences)

    Lenore summarizes neatly as saints (I) and politicians (E)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

  5. #45
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    Ethics are feeling-based judgements so all the other functions don't come into it.

    ends justify means - extroverted feeling (do whatever is expedient)
    means justify ends - introverted feeling (do "the right thing" irrespective of consequences)

    Lenore summarizes neatly as saints (I) and politicians (E)
    Don't tell me that ethics are never guided my impersonal principles.

    Plus, Lenore includes ENFPs and ENTPs in the "politicians"; ENFPs don't prefer to use Fe. Instead, if they were to be "politicians", they would cater to others via Ne.

  6. #46
    my floof is luxury Wind Up Rex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    853 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,983

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by amerellis View Post
    I disagree that the ends justifies the means. You should never sacrafice other morals in the quest to achieve a "greater good." The means influences the ends and how you come about something should be clean and honest and dignified otherwise your whole effort will be fowled and corrupted.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jenaphor View Post
    1. Nowhere have I stated that you shouldn't try to anticipate the future. The distinction lies with understanding that anticipation of the future doesn't make it a guaranteed future.
    2. As far as objectively more beneficial results this is subjective, reliant on whether you factor in negative actions, how you weigh the concrete negative actions against the conceptual potential benefits. In other words, shall we bake all the Jews to benefit the German economy? Shall we conquer China, so the Japanese people can thrive?
    3. Again, the path taken for Guatanamo Bay was done so from a purported greater good stance. What are the lives and emotional and physical health of very few, as compared to the potential of another 9/11? Let's flip the scenario as viewed by "Islamic freedom fighters". Considering the past policies of the U.S., what's the lives of 3000 people or more, weighed against the entire wellbeing of the Middle East?

    I think the idea of “ends justifying means” as it has been discussed here is an oversimplification and misinterpretation of the Machiavellian concept for a couple of reasons. First of all, Machiavelli pointed out from jump that leaders and statesmen have to sacrifice personal morality in order to do what’s necessary for both the preservation of themselves and the interests of their state. He was a realist, but he was not a relativist. He believed people who do evil, even if it is for some greater good, have still done evil. However, he believed that since the ultimate good of a statesman is preservation of his state, this is the only criteria that anyone is going to judge them by. Thus, it is the only thing that should be of concern to him as no one is going to pat him on the back if society falls apart but he can say he kept his nose clean.

    I also think it’s important to point out that while he acknowledged that immoral action was necessary for the preservation of the state, he never advocated cruelty or evil for its own sake, and even went so far as to say these things ought to be avoided by a good Prince. Which brings me to Jenaphor’s 2nd point that included the historical examples from WWII. In strictly Machiavellian terms, the Holocaust is problematic, but The Rape of Nanjing is debatable. War was good (at least initially) for the economic health of Germany, but Hitler could have easily rallied the German people around a nationalist cause without eugenics.

    So, a well-executed German conquest of Europe to jumpstart business? Good. Arbitrary genocide of your own people for no discernable benefit to anyone? Not so good.

    The Japanese invasion of China is a little different. In the broadest terms, colonizing a country that was vulnerable due to serious internal instability (who you don’t like anyways) for the purpose of fueling modernization within your own state is legitimate. Committing mass atrocities in a strategically significant city like Nanjing in order to break the political will of your opponent is distasteful, but also legitimate. It helped to subdue the Chinese resistance, and was good for morale in Japan when people might have had doubts about going into a two-front war against the Americans. (Although, to digress, the massacres in Central China were not entirely a matter of policy, but opportunism in the face of poor military discipline and propaganda overhype.)

    Would Machiavelli have said either case was good in a moral sense? No, of course not. But if the whole purpose of your existence is to forward the interests of your state, then that question is a moot point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Coffee is good.
    I just bawlk at relativism, particularly when its presented as a fact, Chesterton totally tore most of the Nietzsche lite which has since become popular to pieces in a very simple argument in a book entitled orthodoxy, he suggested that it was moral cowardice to suggest such a thing as beyond good and evil was possible, you were either extra good or extra evil but it was/is one of those definitive things its impossible to do without.

    I dont know what it is that makes good people blame authority or suspiscious of dichotomies like this right away, perhaps its a deep down hope that Socrates was right and that no one knowingly does harm or evil and that the only evil is really ignorance of the good but it bothers me and its why I tend to retort like that. Often its not something which has been thought out that much and is just thrown out with expectations of acceptance or a kind of easily knocked down moral outrage.
    I found this post interesting given that I understand you to be Catholic, and wondered what your take was on just war theory, which is deeply rooted in the works of St. Augustine and Aquinas. Both of who argued for a doctrine that acknowledges that you sometimes have to knowingly perpetrates evil to combat injustice or existential threat.

    On the same note, I wondered what you and everyone else thought about humanitarian intervention, given your feelings on consequentialism.
    And so long as you haven’t experienced this: to die and so to grow,
    you are only a troubled guest on the dark earth

  7. #47
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,653

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wind-up Rex View Post
    I found this post interesting given that I understand you to be Catholic, and wondered what your take was on just war theory, which is deeply rooted in the works of St. Augustine and Aquinas. Both of who argued for a doctrine that acknowledges that you sometimes have to knowingly perpetrates evil to combat injustice or existential threat.

    On the same note, I wondered what you and everyone else thought about humanitarian intervention, given your feelings on consequentialism.
    I do believe in just war theory, its a logical extention of self-defence to my mind, in situations where you are capable of physically challenging or overcoming an assailant in self defence do you run away, bare an injury or overcome the threat? I think you should overcome the threat, as much because of the potential learning involved for the assailant as for the righteousness of the action itself.

    I dont believe Socrates position myself, I think its very optimistic, there are competing rights and ends sometimes and as you say it is sometimes necessary to commit evil acts to prevent greater evil from taking place.

  8. #48
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    I think the Achilles heel of deontology is that one cannot detect another's intentions with absolute certainty. If one is to bring justice against another based on their decisions, then they must chiefly deal with demonstrable sources. On the other hand, motives are a key element in determining why we carry out heinous actions; even so, one must work their way from evidence to speculation. There are many sides to the issue, so I'm willing to bet that the more stable individuals out there are those who've learned to mediate between deontology and ontology rather that running blind with only a single method in hand.

  9. #49
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wind-up Rex View Post

    I found this post interesting given that I understand you to be Catholic, and wondered what your take was on just war theory, which is deeply rooted in the works of St. Augustine and Aquinas. Both of who argued for a doctrine that acknowledges that you sometimes have to knowingly perpetrates evil to combat injustice or existential threat.

    On the same note, I wondered what you and everyone else thought about humanitarian intervention, given your feelings on consequentialism.
    I like this sentiment. I've always had the feeling that the Catholic community generally views morality as a set of general rules that must sometimes be compromised under dire circumstances and can later be mended through forgiveness. Overly rigid adherence to any specific code of conduct will eventually feel like wearing a straight jacket for more than a couple of reasons.

  10. #50
    my floof is luxury Wind Up Rex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    853 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,983

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ginkgo View Post
    I like this sentiment. I've always had the feeling that the Catholic community generally views morality as a set of general rules that must sometimes be compromised under dire circumstances and can later be mended through forgiveness. Overly rigid adherence to any specific code of conduct will eventually feel like wearing a straight jacket for more than a couple of reasons.
    I was raised Catholic, and attended a Jesuit university. I'm admittedly ignorant of the full diversity of perspective within Catholicism on morality, but found the Jesuit perspective to be influential. It's not so much that morality is a set of rules to compromise. More that one hopes to discern and act in accordance with the will of God, and sometimes we fall short. God loves us so He forgives us. The Jesuits talk about "effective love". For them loving your brother means to serve him however best you can. These are two aspects of the Jesuit ideology that contribute to a complexion that's uniquely activist, pragmatic and at times irreverent. You live passionately to know God and His creation, to love others, and to serve both. Any rule or principle that doesn't jive with that can be booted or actively strived against. I guess what I'm trying to get at here is that Ignatian spirituality is kinda the shit, and Jesuits are the coolest people pretty much ever.
    And so long as you haven’t experienced this: to die and so to grow,
    you are only a troubled guest on the dark earth

Similar Threads

  1. Type and Handwriting
    By Ivy in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 591
    Last Post: 10-13-2017, 02:49 AM
  2. Thinking types and their emotions.
    By Athenian200 in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 12-26-2014, 02:06 PM
  3. Personality Types and Music
    By SuperServal in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 102
    Last Post: 10-15-2012, 06:37 PM
  4. Types and Revenge
    By Natrushka in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 64
    Last Post: 08-20-2010, 06:52 AM
  5. Is there a correlation between type and military enlistment?
    By Cindyrella in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 07-20-2007, 10:04 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO