the moral NTs

[MissMurder]

What brand of morality to you hold yourselves and others accountable to?

The standard for myself is what would Jesus do? I don't always hit the mark, but that's the gold standard.

As for other people, they hold themselves to their own standards. I can't change that so I just observe their behavior. If I like it I continue to associate with them. If not, I don't.

Do people trust you?

Yes.

Do you consider yourself trustworthy?

Yes.

[Blackmail!]

What brand of morality to you hold yourselves and others accountable to?

"True morality makes light of morality" (Pascal)

I have a big problem with authority. Not because I enjoy to challenge it, but mainly because this concept is completely alien to me.

I can lie, I can cheat if necessary, but I can't stand people who use violence, whether physical or psychological.


Do people trust you?

They shouldn't.


Do you consider yourself trustworthy?

Not at all. When asked, I can do the best or the worst, but nothing in the middle.
Since I have the reputation to be the benevolent guy, I'm very often called upon, so I find it very difficult to keep my words everywhere.

[IlyaK1986]

Originally Posted by ThatGirl

What brand of morality to you hold yourselves and others accountable to?


Do people trust you?


Do you consider yourself trustworthy?

Morals? Are worthless. You follow the rules set by a bunch of bumbling SJs, but morals should never get in the way of progress.

Yes and yes.

[pippi]

Originally Posted by ThatGirl

What brand of morality to you hold yourselves and others accountable to?

I listen to my own conscience. I don't care what anyone else thinks is right or wrong for me. I don't hold others to any standard, they are accountable to themselves.

Do people trust you?

Yes.

Do you consider yourself trustworthy?

Very.

[Darjur]

I don't follow any "brand of morality" consciously, I just do what I think is right. Although, I have been accused of being amoral countless times, so I can't really vouch for the success of this lifestyle.

Depends on on the question "with what?"

[Edgar]

Here is a basic summary of my morality: I may not be a nice guy, but I'm not a scumbag either.

Dealing with me you usually get what you deserve (good or bad)

[Park]

Originally Posted by ThatGirl

What brand of morality to you hold yourselves and others accountable to?

If there's a name for it, it would probably be my own perception of "common sense".

Do people trust you?

Yes, people trust me enormously. I'm often described af honest, pure etc.

Do you consider yourself trustworthy?

Nope - but when people get to know me, my behaviour is quite predictable which, to some extend, makes up for what I lack in trustworthiness.

[blanclait]

Originally Posted by ThatGirl

What brand of morality to you hold yourselves and others accountable to?

whatever my feelings say. i changed my morals and beliefs alot compare to the standard morals in my society. So unless i write about 5pg+ i don't think i will get that out.

Do people trust you?

Yes.

Do you consider yourself trustworthy?

Yes, that is if i truely like the person.

[8lifeGREAT]

[quote=entropie;340287]What brand of morality to you hold yourselves and others accountable to?

Balance in all things is my morality too. Makes me a candidate for suspicion even in the most "out there" charasmatic crouds. But my ENTP self doesn't mind being controversial because people who earn my time by proving themselves able to (NT) be open and thoughtful will find a willing and gentle debate partner.

I value balance so highly that I may seem hard to tie down. I am currently trying to figure out what's required to date more than 1 person seriously at a time. As an ENTP I build intimacy by nature so I can seem either too laid back by the balance, or too forward by the excitement of possibility and the fullness with which I bring myself IN THE MOMENT. I can seem "unstable." But I'm a moment-to-moment, full-out kind of person. I'm learning temperence.

[Magic Poriferan]

I try my best to have a moral system, but naturally, there is none I have found which show no holes under my skeptical gaze. I merely attempt to adhere to the most conistent and definable morals as I see them.

As such, the moral system I try to follow basically goes as this. It is a teleological ethic, which means that I believe good and bad are defined by consequences. The ends are what are important. Motives and means are relevant, but again, they are only relevant in how you can relate them to the ends. Does something have a positive impact, or a negative impact?

That being said, I define positive in terms of what creates happiness and joy, and destroys sadness and sorrow. There's a very simple system here. That which does the opposite is the worst thing of all. That which say, removes both sadness and happiness, is better, but still not as good as something that removes sadness and instills happiness. It's easy enough to follow.

And it's about quantity, not just quality. Two happy people is better than one. and a long, happy life, is better than a short happy life. Though this does not actually reflect reality, it may be easier to understand if you were to imagine that happiness is an independent commodity unto itself, and the goal is to generate it in mass and longevity. Of course, imagine the same thing with sadness, but that it were something that needs to be removed, (like toxic waste).

Now, pay very close attention that I'm saying happiness, or joy, and not pleasure. Often time moral utilitarians, most obviously the hedonists, recomend maximizing pleasure. I have found, undeniably, that pleasure and happiness can exist totally independent of each other, and between the two, I've concluded that happiness is much better. I do not advocate hedonism because it merely generates pleasure, not happiness, and that the process of seeking hedonistic lifestyles often comes at the expense of things that would bring happiness. This is a fact that has lived on from ancient wisdom to modern scientific study.

Now, as I said, the theory has holes. The most obvious is the concept of degree of happiness, and degree of sadness that one person experiences. Clearly, the higher degree of happiness and lower degree of sadness, the better, and we could just apply this to every single human being and calculate it all the same. But there are two problems. One, there is absolutely no consistent way to measure a person's feelings, so calculation is impossible. If one person could be made to experience happiness at the expense of ten other peoples' happiness, but the overall degree of happiness that the one person and those ten people felt combined, was now greater than the combined amount before hand, would it be right to make it so? Should the number of people feeling a certain base degree of happiness be more important than the amount of happiness that any one person feels? Personally, I would say it does matter more, but again, the problem is that there is no way to measure happiness, so I do not know what the standard degree of happiness would be. It is never the less also a purely subjective, unrationalized decision on my part.

Another issue is about whether or not happiness is really th best thing. What if people could be made to be absolutely, mindlessly happy? Kind of like the way hedons indulge in pleasure. What if people could be made to be maximally happy, all the time, until they die? They would presumably have no motivation to do anyhting, even to maintain their lives. Society, and the human race, would die off. But they would all be totally happy doing it... So is it wrong? The only argument I can find for saying that such a situation is undesirable is that the human race would die in one generation, and as a result, there would be no more happiness at all. That would be the end. I admit though, that this requires one to attach their own sense of value to generations far into the future, which is often a hard thing to rationalize,. I can't say why it matters that happiness should exist in a future world where nothing we know now exists, so I'm not sure about that one.

Never the less, holes aside, I stick with this system because I find it the most understandable, simple, workable, and containing the least holes when compared to other moral systems. Another thing that's convenient for me is that it makes the most subjective aspect of morality, that is deciding what is good and bad unto itself, a very small and simple part of the issue. The result of this philosophy is that most moral problems simply become a matter of determining workability. The subjective part is quickly brushed out of the way, and most of the time is spent on objective problem solving. This is very satisfying for an INTP like me.