Type and Ethics.

[King sns]

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.

At first I thought that an Si person may be the one who figures that if you take each logical "right" next step, then the end will be favorable. Ne thinking that there would be a "right" end goal, and take whatever steps to achieve it. I wasn't sure about the other two- perhaps similarly grouped, or perhaps Se would go with Ne, and Ni would go with Si in this case. Then I thought that perhaps an NF would want to look at the entire situation and be right all around, (being inclined to think about these things anyways- ending up similar to the SJ in this situation.) NT's and SP's may be looking for the end result. Then I figured that an Fi may be inclined to take it on a situation to situation basis- values well defined and deciding subjectively and situationally. Where Te may be looking for a certain generally "right" end that applies to a wide variety of situations. Or just the simple T vs. F in general. (Well, the list goes on and on.)

Anyway, that, and other ethical values- who places importance on what?

What's your type, and ethical code? (You can include other definitions besides just ends/means.)

Also, I was looking at this website- some values are basic, others that I didn't know had a definition.

http://www.ascensionhealth.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47&Itemid=171

 

[Silveresque]

My ethics could be described as a very complex web of primary values with secondary and tertiary values stemming from those values. I've never actually visually represented my moral code, but that's probably what it would look like if I did. It's not strictly utilitarian; there's certainly a subjective element to my method as well. I detach to analyze objectively according to my value system, but my values themselves could be considered subjective. An action which produces positive feeling/results while avoiding significant pain could be considered good. An action that produces positive feeling/results as well as significant pain for the sake of the greater good could be considered tragic, and can only be justified by necessity.

 

[Chiharu]

I have many moral implications and comparatively few moral truths/beliefs. Basically I have several core beliefs I'm not willing to compromise, and then I read into them and find applicable shades of morality for a given situation. The shades are quite fluid, and I'm very open to discussion/compromise on them, but the closer it gets to the core value the more stubborn and sure I become.

 

[Lord Guess]

I'd say that, if the means prevent a worse end from coming about, they are justified. If the means undermine the final end, they were not.

 

[rav3n]

My values database is currently under renovation. So much horse shit that needs to be shoveled out.

 

[miss fortune]

mine are fairly basic in the end... do not screw over another human being unless you can help it (revenge is a different category)

 

[Lord Guess]

I'd add that, whether or not the end is good or evil isn't important in this case; if you want an end to come about, any means you take toward it can be justified as long as you do not end up in a worse position because of them, or end up undermining your goal because of them.

 

[Ginkgo]

My values database is currently under renovation. So much horse shit that needs to be shoveled out.

I know what that feels like. More along the lines of unwarranted prejudices or some other garbage.

 

[rav3n]

I know what that feels like. More along the lines of unwarranted prejudices or some other garbage.

Yes. Also, the concepts of right/wrong, good/bad. It's perceptional within the societal construct of law. By rote values can harm, worse than WMDs. Worse yet, deliberate ignorance.

 

[amerellis]

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.

 

[Craft]

Mine: Truth. It's a very basic and instinctive value so it's very much related to TiSi. I tried to discard it once because it's hinders the achievement of goals,(you have to lie to people and such) but I kept feeling ridiculously bad about it.

Next is empathy. If you can relate, then you should cooperate. Also, quite primal.

Then Fun. If you don't like it, don't do it.

Discarding: Competence and Social Acceptance.

After that, no more. I try to keep it small because of utilitarianism.

 

[rav3n]

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.

Yes. Process matters, otherwise genocide would be acceptable.

 

[Lord Guess]

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.

Well, framing it in a good/evil dichotomy, let's say that, in order to prevent a horrific, terrible situation from coming about, one which would negatively affect everyone involved, you were forced to do a number of unsavory, terrible things yourself (though not as bad as the final end you are trying to avoid). Let's say that, in the end, all of these ruthless means you took it upon yourself to put in motion actually worked, and prevented the great catastrophe. Would you then say that the end (preventing a horrific, long lasting disaster) did not justify the means (causing short term suffering)? What would you say if someone did not go through with these means, and allowed this horrifying situation to materialize without having done anything about it, causing much more suffering in the end? Would he not be to blame, since he had it in his power to minimize the suffering caused?

 

[rav3n]

Well, framing it in a good/evil dichotomy, let's say that, in order to prevent a horrific, terrible situation from coming about, one which would negatively affect everyone involved, you were forced to do a number of unsavory, terrible things yourself (though not as bad as the final end you are trying to avoid). Let's say that, in the end, all of these ruthless means you took it upon yourself to put in motion actually worked, and prevented the great catastrophe. Would you then say that the end (preventing a horrific, long lasting disaster) did not justify the means (causing short term suffering)? What would you say if someone did not go through with these means, and allowed this horrifying situation to materialize without having done anything about it, causing much more suffering in the end? Would he not be to blame, since he had it in his power to minimize the suffering caused?

Assumptive, since no one is omnipotent hence cannot predict the future. It's also assumptive to believe that one construct is the only "right" or "good" construct.

 

[amerellis]

Well, framing it in a good/evil dichotomy, let's say that, in order to prevent a horrific, terrible situation from coming about, one which would negatively affect everyone involved, you were forced to do a number of unsavory, terrible things yourself (though not as bad as the final end you are trying to avoid). Let's say that, in the end, all of these ruthless means you took it upon yourself to put in motion actually worked, and prevented the great catastrophe. Would you then say that the end (preventing a horrific, long lasting disaster) did not justify the means (causing short term suffering)? What would you say if someone did not go through with these means, and allowed this horrifying situation to materialize without having done anything about it, causing much more suffering in the end? Would he not be to blame, since he had it in his power to minimize the suffering caused?

That's more utillitarian ethics and I wouldn't consider it sacraficing your morals necessarily? However, I have a hard time ever imagining a situation where that would come about, where it would be necessary to use suffering to prevent more suffering but if/when that happens I would tend to agree that's what's best is best even if it is a dark shade of grey.
When I was writing my post I more had in mind people with political agendas who cheat and smear in order to try and get their side into power.
Also, Jenaphor makes a good point. You are making assumptions.
Also, I just don't see how you would need to do all these terrible things to prevent something terrible. I'm sure there could be a better way.

 

[mujigay]

That's more utillitarian ethics and I wouldn't consider it sacraficing your morals necessarily? However, I have a hard time ever imagining a situation where that would come about, where it would be necessary to use suffering to prevent more suffering but if/when that happens I would tend to agree that's what's best is best even if it is a dark shade of grey.
When I was writing my post I more had in mind people with political agendas who cheat and smear in order to try and get their side into power.
Also, Jenaphor makes a good point. You are making assumptions.
Also, I just don't see how you would need to do all these terrible things to prevent something terrible. I'm sure there could be a better way.

You're an optimistic person, I see.

Not that I blame you, but sometimes you have to do unsavoury things to get to the "best" end.

 

[Lord Guess]

Assumptive, since no one is omnipotent hence cannot predict the future. It's also assumptive to believe that one construct is the only "right" or "good" construct.

In that case, why attempt to plan for the future at all? If a disaster seems imminent, all preparations should be made to deal with it, whether or not it ends up fully materializing; the cost of underpreparation is much higher than the cost of overpreparation, in this case. Also, it would depend on where your priorities lay; personal feelings should not interfere with making decisions that affect a large number of people, unless your personal feelings are your main priority. If you want to prevent the suffering of a large number of people, then your personal feelings will have to take a backseat to this goal. If you want to follow your personal feelings, then you will have to deal with the consequences of the suffering you have caused, instead of pretending that you are following some outdated concept of "good and evil".

As for your second statement, if you are following one path, and are committed enough to it, pandering to someone else's value system will do you no good, since a) you have chosen yours for valid reasons, b) what makes their perspective any more important than your own, and c) they are not doing the same for you, obviously. You cannot make everyone happy; focus on making yourself happy first, and don't worry about satisfying people who don't wish to make you happy.

That's more utillitarian ethics and I wouldn't consider it sacraficing your morals necessarily? However, I have a hard time ever imagining a situation where that would come about, where it would be necessary to use suffering to prevent more suffering but if/when that happens I would tend to agree that's what's best is best even if it is a dark shade of grey.
When I was writing my post I more had in mind people with political agendas who cheat and smear in order to try and get their side into power.
Also, Jenaphor makes a good point. You are making assumptions.
Also, I just don't see how you would need to do all these terrible things to prevent something terrible. I'm sure there could be a better way.

You're an idealist, I see . There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, but sometimes in life, tough decisions need to be made, and not all of them will leave everyone happy. As for people who lie, cheat and steal for their own gain; politics is a dirty game, and one where ruthlessness is rewarded. Sort of a "survival of the fittest" thing, since the ones who aren't willing to be ruthless for their own sake might not be able to stomach ruthlessness for another's sake, either. You're better off using people's dirty little games for your own benefit than you are expecting them to change.

 

[amerellis]

In that case, why attempt to plan for the future at all? If a disaster seems imminent, all preparations should be made to deal with it, whether or not it ends up fully materializing; the cost of underpreparation is much higher than the cost of overpreparation, in this case. Also, it would depend on where your priorities lay; personal feelings should not interfere with making decisions that affect a large number of people, unless your personal feelings are your main priority. If you want to prevent the suffering of a large number of people, then your personal feelings will have to take a backseat to this goal. If you want to follow your personal feelings, then you will have to deal with the consequences of the suffering you have caused, instead of pretending that you are following some outdated concept of "good and evil".

As for your second statement, if you are following one path, and are committed enough to it, pandering to someone else's value system will do you no good, since a) you have chosen yours for valid reasons, b) what makes their perspective any more important than your own, and c) they are not doing the same for you, obviously. You cannot make everyone happy; focus on making yourself happy first, and don't worry about satisfying people who don't wish to make you happy.



You're an idealist, I see . There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, but sometimes in life, tough decisions need to be made, and not all of them will leave everyone happy. As for people who lie, cheat and steal for their own gain; politics is a dirty game, and one where ruthlessness is rewarded. Sort of a "survival of the fittest" thing, since the ones who aren't willing to be ruthless for their own sake might not be able to stomach ruthlessness for another's sake, either. You're better off using people's dirty little games for your own benefit than you are expecting them to change.

But then it's like where do you draw the line you know? Your letting others change and corrupt you and before you know it the cause that you are fighting for really won't be so good after all as it doesn't have anything left to stand for.
I think in most cases you should just stand by your principals from the beginning come hell or high water.

 

[rav3n]

Lord Guess, strawmen to knock down. The process matters.

 

[Lord Guess]

But then it's like where do you draw the line you know? Your letting others change and corrupt you and before you know it the cause that you are fighting for really won't be so good after all as it doesn't have anything left to stand for.
I think in most cases you should just stand by your principals from the beginning come hell or high water.

If that is your principle, then you haven't lost anything at all. If you have other ideals in place, on the other hand, and you're trying to get in power to realize them, then you cannot shut your eyes from the practicalities necessary to realize your ideals. If you want power for reasons having nothing to do with good or evil, then there will be no problem at all; if you are tied up in the good/evil idea, then spreading good to the maximum number of people is arguably worth getting your hands a little dirty, if the alternative is your ideals fading into obscurity because you were too afraid to act.

Lord Guess, strawmen to knock down. The process matters.

The process matters if its execution renders the original end moot. If not, however, and there is no alternative, using unsavoury means to prevent a far worse outcome is justified.