User Tag List

First 456

Results 51 to 59 of 59

  1. #51
    Senior Member captain curmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    BIRD
    Enneagram
    631 sp
    Posts
    3,264

    Default

    I'll do my own thing and you can do yours. Working with others to achieve goals is not a problem, but they better be as competent as I am.

    Don't use harmful value judgments, especially if you can't defend them with some level of reason. If you project them onto me, I'll likely do the same to you regardless of who you are or your status.

    If you're someone who thinks your set of values and norms should be enforced on society, you probably won't get my respect.

    If I open up to you about my personal opinions IRL (besides venting) without being pressured...consider it a badge of honor or something.


    DO NOT VIOLATE MY PERSONAL SPACE (this is in increasing levels of importance- in physical, emotional, or moral issues.) If you make any sort of habit out of putting me in awkward moral situations, I will quickly reach the point where I will do everything in my power to humiliate and ruin you. If you go by the motto "Do as I say, not as I do", *see previous statement*

    "An harm ye none, do what ye will." I'd like to think I make a reasonable effort to live by this.

    I hope that made sense.

    I'm an ISfP.

  2. #52
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wind-up Rex View Post
    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.
    The common Greek word for sin used in the New Testament is hamartia. This
    word derives from a technical word used in archery. It literally means to
    miss the mark. It can be used to express willful rebellion against God as
    well as making a mistake and falling short. Because the word hamartia is
    used in such a broad variety of contexts, one can see that the word sin in
    English also carries with it a fairly wide variety of connotations. One
    should let the context of an individual passage determine the sense in
    which the word sin is to be interpreted. The overall sense one gets from
    the Bible is that God is concerned both about the willful, blatant sins
    and the unintentional breaking of God's will as well--the falling short
    and missing the mark God has set for us.


    https://www.evidenceforchristianity....k=view&id=4288
    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.
    Lol way to get to the point.

  3. #53
    ReflecTcelfeR
    Guest

    Default

    Ethics... I know what is viewed as right or wrong, but there is no visceral response towards someone crossing me. I can usually let go... There are things that I will not do, but I can't tell if it's because it's 'wrong' or if it's because I've been taught it's 'wrong'.... This probably doesn't help at all as my type right now is 9999... Don't know how that happened...

    /closet ENT.... Ha!

  4. #54
    AKA Nunki Polaris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    451 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INFp Ni
    Posts
    1,373

    Default

    My view of ethics is that the conscience is a psychological illness. The easy of mind don't have a little voice in their head needling at them to do this and not do that; their actions are natural and un-self-conscious. By extension, I reject moralism, which is first of all proof of a bad conscience (moralism is personal experience of guilt turned outward; hence the paradox that preachers and the like so often end up in scandals where they've done the things that they most vehemently denounce), and second of all, an attempt to make other people equally ill. It's also profoundly disingenuous, in that it's an attempt to make oneself appear guiltless when one is far from it.

    Lest I blatantly fall into the same trap, let it be noted that the fact that I wrote this post about moralism demonstrates that I'm not the ideal innocent person. Such a person would not be capable of writing about morals because they would have no moral understanding. Nor am I contradicting myself by moralizing against morals; I'm making an observation about the psychological condition of moral-conscious people and expressing a personal aversion to that state of mind.
    [ Ni > Ti > Fe > Fi > Ne > Te > Si > Se ][ 4w5 sp/sx ][ RLOAI ][ IEI-Ni ]

  5. #55
    Junior Member cen98's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    ENFP
    Posts
    10

    Default

    Oyyy, I wanted to read all of this thread, maybe I'll come back to it. For basic day to day interactions I like deontology/live and let live/do unto others, utilitarianism is a back up plan when deontology is too idealistic/not practical (in a Churchill and WWII Coventry bombing situation).

    I'm a moralist, and I consider myself to be pretty laid back and "easy of mind". When I think I've made a mistake I look at what I did, and do what I can to improve because that is all you can do and much more productive than beating yourself up about it. And I like morals not because I'm a feely ENFP (although it helps ), I just think even from a logical stand point society can't exist properly if the majority of people are running around killing, raping, cheating, lying, etc. And I also believe in equality, so I think people should at least try to hold themselves to the same standard. The point is improving and making the world a better place, even a little

  6. #56
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Really? Why outdated? Why limiting? What is your alternative conceptualisation and how does it avoid the limits and "outdated" nature you attribute to the dichotomy of good vs. evil?
    Quote Originally Posted by shortnsweet
    I assumed that he(she?) was talking about the huge amount of situations that involve both/ or grey areas- and of course good and evil are similar in a lot of areas across the globe and people, but still differ. The concepts are still very much alive and the same, though.
    It's been a while since I posted; that'll teach me to lose my internet connection.

    @Lark I find it limited and limiting both because of what @shortnsweet said, and because "good" often advocates a restriction of the will to survive to the benefit of the crowd, which does have its practical uses for society's benefit. Having a country/culture/religion full of people who were unwilling to place the needs of the collective above their own, and were encouraged by the dominant moral system to be primarily concerned with their own benefit (any sort of will to achieve, surpass, or dominate is simply an extension of the will to survive) could make creating a cohesive group structure an arduous task. It is, more or less, a restriction and limitation of survival to only survival; it sacrifices the limits of the personal will to survive to the benefit of the group.

    I find it outdated because, while good and evil are both valid concepts (you'll never hear me argue that they don't exist, when it is quite clear that they have existed in some form for most of recorded history), they don't go that extra mile in truly defining human morality and cannot be used as the basis for a comprehensive moral system all on their own.

    My alternative conceptualization is still a work in progress, admittedly, and I would rather do it justice by giving you a fully coherent system to pick apart and make your decisions based on. Boiled down to its simplest tenets, it accepts that good and evil, while present and real, are both subjective and are both ultimately used by all people to serve the law of survival (which is the desire to live born out of the fear of death), and our moral systems and our drive for purpose (which is again linked to the fear of death). They do exist, they just aren't the end-all-be-all of morality. I'd be happy to go into more detail, once I've gotten everything sorted out to my liking.

  7. #57

    Default

    I'm not sure I'll ask you to go into more detail because it all seems too vague, amoralism provides not real alternative to objective concepts like good and evil, I also dont see how it is limiting really as a more limited state of being would that you are proposing which is vague, unclear and incommunicable. Imagine being the only english speaker in a latin country for instance, it is not a freeing state to be in.

    It is the vulgarisation or over simplification or hijacking of concepts such as good and evil which I can understand people rejecting or resisting but trying to dispense with them altogether or proposing a complete alternative is nonsensical to me, like suggesting that if you only flap your arms fast enough you will be able to fly rather than walk.

  8. #58
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I'm not sure I'll ask you to go into more detail because it all seems too vague, amoralism provides not real alternative to objective concepts like good and evil, I also dont see how it is limiting really as a more limited state of being would that you are proposing which is vague, unclear and incommunicable. Imagine being the only english speaker in a latin country for instance, it is not a freeing state to be in.

    It is the vulgarisation or over simplification or hijacking of concepts such as good and evil which I can understand people rejecting or resisting but trying to dispense with them altogether or proposing a complete alternative is nonsensical to me, like suggesting that if you only flap your arms fast enough you will be able to fly rather than walk.
    That's fine. I am not here to convince anyone who isn't willing to accept my views, but I will be happy to share them with anyone who asks when they have been properly designed. It only seems vague because I have not explained it any further; as I said before, I would be happy to do so once they are arranged to my liking. I have not completely dispensed with good and evil; I have simply reduced their supposed importance in the moral question. As for whether or not they are subjective or objective, that is a question to be answered for another day; I have my views on the matter, and you have your own.

  9. #59
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,549

    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.
    But it might actually work. The opposite is just as bad, if not worse: namely, that the means justify the ends. If you follow all the rules, dot the i's and cross the t's, use the correct process, the end will be "good". Yet we see how this falls short in almost every sphere of life. We are an increasingly process-driven society, with everything determined by regulation and administrivia, certification over qualification, legality over reality, and little regard to the quality, suitability, or fairness of outcomes.

    In criticizing a "means justify the ends" approach, people tend to lose sight of the fact that there is more than one end. Yes, if all you care about is one single given end, it is easy to find means of reaching it that have significant negative consequences. If one understands the need to balance multiple ends, or goals, however, that in and of itself will constrain the means used in reaching any one of them. If you are not going to put your goals first, however, you might as well not have them, and do nothing.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

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