• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

What's Your Alignment?

What's your alignment?


  • Total voters
    73

chickpea

perfect person
Joined
Sep 12, 2009
Messages
5,729
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
So you're not a bad person, nor are you necessarily a good person?

You're a neutral person.

If so, it seems like the system kinda cuts to the core of things...

what does it even mean to be a good person, though?
 

Tyrinth

...
Joined
Nov 17, 2011
Messages
1,154
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
649
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
What if what makes someone happy is evil?

Do you support them doing it because it makes them happy?

That depends on the situation.

For instance, there are quite a few people that consider stem cell research "evil" or at the very least "wrong". However people pursue such research because it can save people, and one would hope that they save people because it makes them happy, and not for the money... So they are commiting an "evil" to make themselves (and others) happy, and I fully support them in that instance. This is one situation where I think the subjective nature of good and evil comes into play. Some will consider it good others won't. So basically, it depends on the situation... So really, I can't answer your question, because it would have to be asked for each specific instance that you could ever think of. There is no one answer.
 

BlackCat

Shaman
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
7,038
MBTI Type
ESFP
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I always score Chaotic good or Chaotic neutral. I think apart of me wants to be Chaotic neutral and I relate to it in a way because I consider myself to be a highly independent person; but no matter what I can't really escape from the fact that I have basically good intentions and have others' well being in mind with everything that I do, and that I really can't live solely for myself no matter how much I try.

As for the Chaos part, I really dislike order to be perfectly honest. I am pretty rebellious and I really like to shake things up. When things get too predictable I get very bored and antsy, and a lot my reactions to things in my life feel very unpredictable and probably appear to be really random and knee jerk in nature because they're based on feelings. I'm not really set in my ways so much, I live to change.
 

skylights

i love
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
7,756
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Neutral Good.

I think laws and order are generally helpful and usually for the greater good, but my ethical sense will win out over law every time - I think ethics are more fuzzy/complicated and more important than laws can account for (and laws are made to promote good, not vice versa). As for good over evil (in the alignment sense), I believe that true "good" inherently helps everyone, so it makes no sense in my internal logic to be evil or even neutral - being "good" helps me as much as it helps others (plus I have always felt the compulsion to help others).

I think it's a pretty good description, but I feel that the good-evil labels are likely to throw people off - probably there are a lot of "evils" running around identifying as neutral because they don't want to be evil. Or is a true evil person less likely to care? Probably, but I still bet there's bias because of it.

I think it's a relevant system, but moreso in terms of human interactions, instead of intrapersonal development, which MBTI and the Enneagram are better for.

As for dating, that's funny. I suppose realistically I can only see dating someone in the Neutral-to-Good and Neutral-to-Lawful range. I feel like dating a Chaotic would be a pain in the behind (sorry to any Chaotics, I'm just enough of a mess already), and dating an Evil would cause endless pain on my part, since I'd always be looking out for them and they wouldn't be always looking out for me. Right now I'm dating a (suspected) Lawful Good, which seems to work well for me. He could be a little less of either and I'd probably be fine too, though.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
That depends on the situation.

Ok, but what you originally said was:

Tyrinth said:
I think people should do what makes them happy, I don't care if someone calls it good or evil.

So you've pedaled back a little bit, haven't you?

Before you required no restrictions on what they were able to do that would make them happy, but now you are, aren't you?

I guess the question becomes, in what kinds of situations would your original maxim not apply?

For instance, there are quite a few people that consider stem cell research "evil" or at the very least "wrong". However people pursue such research because it can save people, and one would hope that they save people because it makes them happy, and not for the money... So they are commiting an "evil" to make themselves (and others) happy, and I fully support them in that instance. This is one situation where I think the subjective nature of good and evil comes into play. Some will consider it good others won't. So basically, it depends on the situation... So really, I can't answer your question, because it would have to be asked for each specific instance that you could ever think of. There is no one answer.

I think stem cell research does present an interesting moral, specifically when you get down to the nuances of where the stem cells are coming from, but, as in your previous example about self-defense, I think looking to the grey areas is problematic, whereas looking to the extreme examples, that hopefully we can all agree on, shine light on the fact that you may not be so willing to call morality subjective as you originally claimed you were.
 

Tyrinth

...
Joined
Nov 17, 2011
Messages
1,154
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
649
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
For example, do you believe that whether or not rape is moral or immoral is entirely subjective?

How about genocide? Or child abuse?

You see, the thing that I can't seem to get across is that it doesn't matter what I think. It matters what everyone thinks at any given time across history.

If you look throughout history you will see that many of those things were acceptable, if not encouraged in certain situations in the past.

In order for morality to truly be objective and not subjective, the morality of an action should not vary from person to person or group to group. What is child abuse now was just disciplining your child in the past. The action never changed, just the group that was evaluating the action did. I'm not saying I think child abuse is right, I'm just saying that in the past it may not have been considered wrong.

Again, I'm sorry if my thoughts can be difficult to follow, I can never tell when I'm becoming incoherent.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
I always score Chaotic good or Chaotic neutral. I think apart of me wants to be Chaotic neutral and I relate to it in a way because I consider myself to be a highly independent person; but no matter what I can't really escape from the fact that I have basically good intentions and have others' well being in mind with everything that I do, and that I really can't live solely for myself no matter how much I try.

[MENTION=7991]chana[/MENTION]

Imo, the quality expressed by [MENTION=5627]BlackCat[/MENTION] @the bolded is a pretty good place to start pointing to when trying to determine what it means to be a good person. It could be fleshed out a bit more, but what he expressed here is pretty much what I already had in mind.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
Neutral Good.

Well, we already knew that one.

I think laws and order are generally helpful and usually for the greater good, but my ethical sense will win out over law every time - I think ethics are more fuzzy/complicated and more important than laws can account for (and laws are made to promote good, not vice versa). As for good over evil (in the alignment sense), I believe that true "good" inherently helps everyone, so it makes no sense in my internal logic to be evil or even neutral - being "good" helps me as much as it helps others (plus I have always felt the compulsion to help others).

Yeah, this is pretty much exactly how I feel.

I think it's a pretty good description, but I feel that the good-evil labels are likely to throw people off - probably there are a lot of "evils" running around identifying as neutral because they don't want to be evil. Or is a true evil person less likely to care? Probably, but I still bet there's bias because of it.

Umm...

Well, I don't know if the true evils would care, but I don't know whether they'd want to come out and openly admit that they are evil. It might hurt their ability to execute their dastardly deeds.

I think it's a relevant system, but moreso in terms of human interactions, instead of intrapersonal development, which MBTI and the Enneagram are better for.

Hmm...

Interesting thought...

Yeah, I don't know whether you can really "change" or "develop" on this system.

It kinda just seems you are one way, and likely probably always have been that way.

Ok, maybe not, I suppose certain shifts could happen in one's life, a la what UniqueMixture said.

But I don't know if those changes would be anything you could or would want to have control over.

It seems like you could kind of have a "conversion" experience to being more good or more evil, tho.

I'm not sure whether people would be as likely to slide on the order vs chaos axis, tho -- maybe...?

As for dating, that's funny. I suppose realistically I can only see dating someone in the Neutral-to-Good and Neutral-to-Lawful range. I feel like dating a Chaotic would be a pain in the behind (sorry to any Chaotics, I'm just enough of a mess already), and dating an Evil would cause endless pain on my part, since I'd always be looking out for them and they wouldn't be always looking out for me. Right now I'm dating a (suspected) Lawful Good, which seems to work well for me. He could be a little less of either and I'd probably be fine too, though.

See, one of the reasons I'm interested in this system is because of dating.

The fact of the matter is, I think I only want to date someone who is good.

Whether lawful, neutral, or chaotic, I'm not as sure; neutral would probably be my top choice.

Between lawful and chaotic: lawful has the stigma of being a boring anal retentive, while chaotics just seem like they might throw too much unnecessary drama/chaos into the mix. I don't know whether individuals of these preferences would necessarily have to hold to these stereotypes, tho. I'm sure there could be cooler and less cool lawfuls, and more manageable and less manageable chaotics.
 

Tyrinth

...
Joined
Nov 17, 2011
Messages
1,154
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
649
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
So you've pedaled back a little bit, haven't you?

Not necessarily. It's more like I'm having difficulty clearly conveying my thoughts. I don't care if someone calls it good or evil. That doesn't mean that I will not evaluate it as such, and pass judgement afterwards. I'm going to go back to saying that morality is subjective again, because what I was trying to say is that I don't care about anyone's evaluation of the morality of an action but my own. Of course there are exceptions, you can't summarize someone's entire view about morality with one sentence, it would be insulting to the topic if someone tried. It's a complicated topic, and one I could discuss forever.

Do what you want for your happiness, but you need to be ready to justify it, or fight for it. Sometimes doing what you think is good will be considered as evil, and will pose a significant obstacle to your pursuit of happiness. It's an interesting thought that "I think people should do what makes them happy, I don't care if someone calls it good or evil." and one I would like to support. But that does not mean it is one that is practical in the real world. I generally have highly theoretical ideas, and ones that would likely not be possible. I truly do believe that you should do whatever makes you happy, consequences be damned. However, that really isn't possible in the real world.
 

BlackCat

Shaman
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
7,038
MBTI Type
ESFP
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I also think that the Chaotic factor influences the need for independence, Chaotic Good is an interesting alignment in general.
 

Redbone

Orisha
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
2,882
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I think of myself trying to balance between selflessness and selfishness. I try not to harm others with what I do and try not ignore myself as well. When I do bring harm, I try to make amends and do better for the future. That is what being a good person is to me.
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
To the people who consider themselves "neutral", as opposed to good, do you consider yourself a good person?

If so, where's the disconnect?

Yes I consider myself a good person and I've always wanted to be helpful or loving, but there are things about my nature which I know directly oppose good, such as the way I believe in tough love, and the way I feel that some people deserve to be spoken to harshly, and how I know sometimes my moods are entirely selfish. So depending on the moment I could choose a Chaotic Good alignment, but other times I will seem more Chaotic Neutral.

I remember JTG told me once that I seemed more like Chaotic Good and that he was Lawful Neutral. I think he saw himself as neutral, because again, CLEARLY, his behavior can obviously not always be described as "good" or cooperative or serving any benevolent purpose except his own amusement or selfish feelings of vengeance. On the other hand, he's highly lawful, and one of the things about that he hated about this forum is that he thought the rules were too subjective, and he actually has some pretty damn rigid morals, or a sense of what is "correct." However, it is his personal code, just as the Lawful Neutral describes, not always the existing greater "law."

I believe that neutral people can choose to be good, and can be inherently good sensitive caring people, even, but be highly aware of their own selfishness and capriciousness.

I think this is an explanation of a neutral alignment for two people with very clear Fi, one being an FP and the other a TJ.
 
V

violaine

Guest
I sometimes score as a neutral but mostly as chaotic good. Chaotic good is a good fit for me.
 

chickpea

perfect person
Joined
Sep 12, 2009
Messages
5,729
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Imo, the quality expressed by BlackCat @the bolded is a pretty good place to start pointing to when trying to determine what it means to be a good person. It could be fleshed out a bit more, but what he expressed here is pretty much what I already had in mind.

by those standards, no. i care about a few people in my life and accommodate them and adjust my behavior accordingly, but i wouldn't say i consider the greater good of humanity in most of my actions. i am generally a selfish person which probably means i'm not a good person, but i don't intentionally cause any harm. that doesn't mean i don't have morals and my own ideas of what right and wrong are, i'd be lying if i said i always acted on them though.
 

Rasofy

royal member
Joined
Mar 7, 2011
Messages
5,881
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
What, in your opinion, is the difference between being reasonable, and being good?
How bout evil?
By being neutral, we are able to recognize that sometimes evil is more reasonable than good.
Imagine a boy that gets sexually abused by his father every single day for years. Then, one day, the child grabs a knife and stabs his father to death while he was sleeping. Plus, stabs him so much that the funeral is pretty much ruined. Was his action ''good''? Nah, it was pretty evil. Still, reasonable.
There's also the classic criminal law example of a shipwreck scenario, on which there is only a float for 2 people. On this scenario, the reasonable course of action is to fight for your life no matter what. I'd call that evil. Yet, once again, reasonable. And the criminal law recognizes that (the person will not be punished).
There's torture, which can't be called good, but can still be a reasonable option, depending on the criminal and the objective of the torture.
I sometimes ask myself why people worry about Kony. I mean, they just worry, but for the most part don't do anything, they just retweet bs. So why even worry? They think they're being ''good'', while I think I'm being ''neutral'', and the end result is basically the same.
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
By being neutral, we are able to recognize that sometimes evil is more reasonable than good.
Imagine a boy that gets sexually abused by his father every single day for years. Then, one day, the child grabs a knife and stabs his father to death while he was sleeping. Plus, stabs him so much that the funeral is pretty much ruined. Was his action ''good''? Nah, it was pretty evil. Still, reasonable.
There's also the classic criminal law example of a shipwreck scenario, on which there is only a float for 2 people. On this scenario, the reasonable course of action is to fight for your life no matter what. I'd call that evil. Yet, once again, reasonable. And the criminal law recognizes that (it's not a crime
There's torture, which can't be called good, but can still be a reasonable option, depending on the criminal and the objective of the torture.

I agree with this. This is why I think pacifists are dreadfully naive and the death penalty is only practical for a small percentage of the population. Some people really are unable to ever be rehabilitated and will continue to be a problem.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
Yes I consider myself a good person and I've always wanted to be helpful or loving, but there are things about my nature which I know directly oppose good, such as the way I believe in tough love, and the way I feel that some people deserve to be spoken to harshly, and how I know sometimes my moods are entirely selfish. So depending on the moment I could choose a Chaotic Good alignment, but other times I will seem more Chaotic Neutral.

I would say that only 1/3 things tends to deserve to go under "not good", and, even then, so long as your selfish moods aren't harming other people, they're not necessarily "not good" (in some cases, they very well could be, though).

I remember JTG told me once that I seemed more like Chaotic Good and that he was Lawful Neutral. I think he saw himself as neutral, because again, CLEARLY, his behavior can obviously not always be described as "good" or cooperative or serving any benevolent purpose except his own amusement or selfish feelings of vengeance. On the other hand, he's highly lawful, and one of the things about that he hated about this forum is that he thought the rules were too subjective, and he actually has some pretty damn rigid morals, or a sense of what is "correct." However, it is his personal code, just as the Lawful Neutral describes, not always the existing greater "law."

I think this is an explanation of a neutral alignment for two people with very clear Fi, one being an FP and the other a TJ.

This all makes sense.

Lawful Neutral is really weird to me, but something about your explanation makes sense.

Still weird, but I guess I can see that real people like that do exist.

I believe that neutral people can choose to be good, and can be inherently good sensitive caring people, even, but be highly aware of their own selfishness and capriciousness.

I believe this starts getting to the crux of the issue: while perhaps some good people think they are good because the simply don't recognize their selfishness and/or capriciousness, I don't really feel that way about most of the people who chose have chosen "good" thus far. That's not to say that those people wouldn't exist, cuz they certainly do (I'm especially thinking of church-going hypocrites, here).

But I think a lot of times there is a difference between people that, in addition to recognizing their selfishness and/or capriciousness, basically comes down to caring about being moral vs not caring about being moral. There almost seems to be an inherent caring-about-morality that seems to differ in strength between people. I think people who accurately judge themselves as good tend to have more of this particular quality.
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
I would say that only 1/3 things tends to deserve to go under "not good", and, even then, so long as your selfish moods aren't harming other people, they're not necessarily "not good" (in some cases, they very well could be, though).

Well that's just the thing. I can gleefully practice selfish petty vengeance, and I really do expect other people to fuck off when I'm sleeping or my blood sugar is low. I get really bad impulses sometimes. Not necessarily to hurt anyone, but just completely self-centered.

That's why I think I'm Chaotic Neutral who leans toward Chaotic Good. I've gotten both, though my last result was Chaotic Neutral, on the test where they put you in all of these imaginary scenarios, self-preservation seemed pretty high on my list of priorities.


This all makes sense.

Lawful Neutral is really weird to me, but something about your explanation makes sense.

Still weird, but I guess I can see that real people like that do exist.

Yeah I think it's just that ...yeah, he exists.

I believe this starts getting to the crux of the issue: while perhaps some good people think they are good because the simply don't recognize their selfishness and/or capriciousness, I don't really feel that way about most of the people who chose have chosen "good" thus far. That's not to say that those people wouldn't exist, cuz they certainly do (I'm especially thinking of church-going hypocrites, here).

But I think a lot of times there is a difference between people that, in addition to recognizing their selfishness and/or capriciousness, basically comes down to caring about being moral vs not caring about being moral. Their almost seems to be an inherent caring-about-morality that seems to differ in strength between people. I think people who accurately judge themselves as good tend to have more of this particular quality.


Yes, I think so too.
 
Top