User Tag List

First 12

Results 11 to 14 of 14

Thread: Universal Feel?

  1. #11
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    I'd say that it's nothing more than the tribal impulse taken to a mass scale - that there is an "us" that is characterized by commonalities (religion, social class, race and culture), and that because we're "us", we are by definition better than "them" - people who are not like "us", who do things differently than "us". This is a manifestation of group selection - people who are part of the ingroup are more likely to share similar genes than those in the outgroup. Consequently, genetic competition drives the in group to dominate the outgroup, either through conquest and rape (ensuring that the ingroup's genes are propagated even in outgroup offspring), or through extermination (ensuring that there is no genetic competition from the outgroup)
    In your view, why is it the case that people tend to view all persons as belonging to one of the two categories; us and them. Why do you think they tend to assume that those who belong to the 'us' category are superior to those who belong to the 'them' category?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ne-Monster View Post

    I agree that in theory this seems like a bad idea. Yet in practice if the rules were sufficiently generic and open, they could be made to fit most cultures. You see this with most of the ten commandments and the golden rule. Most human cultures map out fairly similiar generic rules which support the human condition. It's only when they get too specific that things go awry.
    In your view, does this amount to the following maxim: Ensure that people are made to do what you think is right, but do not probe into the matter deeply. Just make sure that they adhere to the law on a very superficial level, it is not important that they adhere in all regards that they are expected to.

    If so, the advocate of Universal Feel can be accused of negligence. His original maxim states that his obligation (Universal Feel A) is to correct all of those who do wrong. If he only does so on a very basic level, he simply is not doing a thorough job. His work is incomplete. This simply means that he fails to be true to his principles.

    What you are advocating seems to be relaxed version of Universal Feel, something that is much more similar to Argument 2, rather than Argument 1. Your position seems to be at an intermediate point between Argument 1 and Argument 2. On the one hand you say that people do have a responsibility to correct those who do wrong (resembling Argument 1), on the other you are saying that they should not be thorough about it. (Akin to argument 2 or the suggestion that to some degree, one of their responsibilities includes not correcting those who do wrong.)

    That is a thoughtful response. I have not before considered a viewpoint that is a hybrid of positions one and two. However, this position incurs the same problem as Argument 2. One who endorses such a view may be inclined to eventually reject it in favor of argument 1. If he thinks that somebody is wrong, it will be difficult for him to supress the urge to correct him in all ways possible. That remains to be a problem that I do not see a solution to as of this moment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Clownmaster View Post
    Personally, I think the only Universal Feel or Universal Law practices that have justification to exist and have any chance at being universally adopted (without extreme use of force) are those laws that can pass Immanuel Kant's Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals "test." (For those who don't know, Kant's the one who tried to find a way to take a logical way to explain ethics, and if you want any form of universal regulation, a moral one is the kind easiest to enforce and for the masses to follow)

    Take an act, and apply it to "what if everyone did this," and if you get any contradictions, then its an immoral act.

    e.g. the act of Stealing. If everyone stole, then nobody would own anything for fear of it getting stolen, so there would be no property to steal.

    for Killing, there would be nobody left

    for Lieing, nobody would trust anyone, therefore there's no point in lying because they wouldn't believe you even if you were telling the truth

    And just have the laws be "Don't Steal. Don't Lie. Don't Kill" and so forth.

    My concern regarding Kantian ethics is that he thinks that they are founded on reason. This is a mistake, most people tend not to derive their ethical principles by virtue of philosophical deliberation. They do so viscerally, simply by having emotional reactions to their life experiences. The emotional reactions that made the most intense and longest lasting impressions upon them are the ones that entail ethical maxims. For instance, if somebody was raised in a religious family and was instructed that belief in God was important on daily basis, they would have an ethical principle regarding the importance of a belief in God.

    Some people, as I mentioned earlier do try to use reason to discover what their maxims are, yet they tend not to reason in a deductively valid manner. In short, they too are being irrational.

    Suppose we accept Kantian deontology and establish that it is possible to establish moral laws that can be universalized. If everyone followed such laws, the world would be a congenial place. However, can we truly expect people to follow such laws? Most people cling to their maxims due to their emotional convictions. When their convictions are opposed, they become irate.

    My concern can be summarized as follows; I do not think that we can convince people to accept the more congenial system of ethics.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  2. #12
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    In your view, why is it the case that people tend to view all persons as belonging to one of the two categories; us and them. Why do you think they tend to assume that those who belong to the 'us' category are superior to those who belong to the 'them' category?
    Plenty of reasons. First, it is a common trend throughout all of recorded history, from tribal organizations to large nation-states. Whenever a source of conflict arises, the authority dehumanizes the opposition, speaks of the greatness of that particular group, emphasizes that the other group is an existential threat, and finally begins to mobilize the population against a despised foe. Us vs. Them.

    I think there are certain types which naturally rebel against this sort of thinking, but it is a rather uncommon trait.

    A less than nefarious example of this means of intergroup reckoning can be seen in followers of sports teams - your team is your tribe, the opponent is the hated other, the field of play is the battlefield, and to the victor go the spoils. The reasoning for following these teams tends to be tribal in nature, as well - "I grew up with my dad watching this team, I can't think of being a fan of anyone else", "It's the best team in the world, no question about it", "Yeah, they might be terrible, but they're my team, I can't just abandon them".

    Is it an expression of particular subtypes? I would say it is likely - particularly for those who favor sensing (they look like a threat, he tells me they're a threat, why wouldn't they be a threat?, this is our culture...), extraverted thinking (my group has to be right, otherwise, what is right?) and/or feeling (I'm obliged to do what the group needs me to, because they'd do the same for me). These functions are dominant in the majority of the population, and are key for group survival - they are the ones that will respond quickly to immediate danger and put themselves on the line for collective survival, or the ones that protect and nurture the young, since they feel obliged to serve the same role as their forebears.

    There is much documentation (Tajifel and Brewer were the main pioneers in this) that even for the most dominated minority, members still consider their ingroup to be superior in various senses - either with a higher moral ground (see fundamentalist Islam/Christianity), better aesthetic sense, better athletic sense, more intelligent, etc. The funny thing is that these biases are even more apparent when directly dominated by a hegemonic group - ingroup members will treat each other disproportionately better, compared to members of the hegemonic group (which is able to distinguish more particular tribal identities among itself, since lack of power is not the defining feature).

    Why do I think that is the case? Group selection, again. Ensuring that similar genes somehow get passed on, even if it costs you.

  3. #13
    Senior Member sculpting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    In your view, does this amount to the following maxim: Ensure that people are made to do what you think is right, but do not probe into the matter deeply. Just make sure that they adhere to the law on a very superficial level, it is not important that they adhere in all regards that they are expected to.

    If so, the advocate of Universal Feel can be accused of negligence. His original maxim states that his obligation (Universal Feel A) is to correct all of those who do wrong. If he only does so on a very basic level, he simply is not doing a thorough job. His work is incomplete. This simply means that he fails to be true to his principles.

    What you are advocating seems to be relaxed version of Universal Feel, something that is much more similar to Argument 2, rather than Argument 1. Your position seems to be at an intermediate point between Argument 1 and Argument 2. On the one hand you say that people do have a responsibility to correct those who do wrong (resembling Argument 1), on the other you are saying that they should not be thorough about it. (Akin to argument 2 or the suggestion that to some degree, one of their responsibilities includes not correcting those who do wrong.)

    That is a thoughtful response. I have not before considered a viewpoint that is a hybrid of positions one and two. However, this position incurs the same problem as Argument 2. One who endorses such a view may be inclined to eventually reject it in favor of argument 1. If he thinks that somebody is wrong, it will be difficult for him to supress the urge to correct him in all ways possible. That remains to be a problem that I do not see a solution to as of this moment..
    I just realized I never followed up. You know how Tuesdays can be...

    A strong Fe user I think would agree to a version closer to argument 2. It doesnt matter what the person actually "feels" only what they show via thier actions. If thier actions for the most part are in line with what society advocates-the application of universal feel on a generic level-then they are left alone. Behind closed doors they can engage in other forms of behavior that are deveint as long as it does not disturb societal structure on the surface. Fe cares about the group looking happy, not feeling happy.

    Following that line of thought, there is no need to be robust in seeking and punishing those who violate the rules unless a statement needs to be made-consider the sudden flurry of interest in the death penelty after a particularly cruel crime.

    An Fi user would however feel obligated to influence how others "feel", would feel more obligated to punish more robustly, and be a purest closer to argument 1. However an Fi user would also be more likely to not push a form of universal feel in the first place, understanding and repsecting that each individual has thier own set of ethical norms. For most Fi users, universal feel would infringe upon thier own ethical norms.

    So your final scenario-argument 2 moving closer to argument 1 is unlikely. It would reqire an Fe user feeling the need to internally influence another's feelings/actions. I think this would only be seen in the most extreme situations in a societal structure which is on the verge of extremism, or is in the process of collapsing where large numbers of Fe users are under large amonts of stress. (Although I could see this on a more limited case with individual Fe users as well under large amounts of stress.) Or as you noted in the first post-a situation in which two groups with very different versions of universal feel collide in a very quuick time scale.


    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    My concern can be summarized as follows; I do not think that we can convince people to accept the more congenial system of ethics.
    Again I think this is dependent upon how generic the rules end up being.

  4. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    Will
    Posts
    5,927

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RaptorWizard View Post
    RaptorWizard's responce to SolitaryWalker's Universal Feel? thread:

    SolitaryWalker asks whether a universal moral law should be imposed upon all people, termed universal feel. There are 3 different arguments we can approach this with: if we must correct those who act wrongly, if there is no choice but to correct them, of even if wrong choose not to do so. Perhaps certain experiences throughout a person’s life have shaped what these values and what violates them are. Some may even divert greater focus on well-reasoned thought-experiments rather than value centered-thought. We must then see how creative and idiosyncratic visionaries construct their worldviews. Certainly many mystics across the globe have already conceptualized what many may deem impossible. Many who see themselves as right often try to change other’s opinions to match their own. These people will tend to think negatively of those who disagree. The accumulation of such feelings may lead to hostility. Due to these possible contingent consequences, an established system of ethics may be a mistaken idea.

Similar Threads

  1. I Don't Feel Like I Am Getting Much out of University Academically
    By Glycerine in forum Academics and Careers
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 04-17-2011, 12:04 PM
  2. [INTJ] INTJ's Introverted Feeling - Child (Puer/Puella)
    By Zhash in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 01-04-2010, 09:06 AM
  3. [NF] Do you care how others feel?
    By Alienclock in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 141
    Last Post: 09-03-2008, 11:22 PM
  4. Thinking/Feeling game: Same Difference
    By rivercrow in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 05-14-2007, 08:17 PM
  5. New to the Mirror Universe
    By outmywindow in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 04-24-2007, 02:20 AM

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