User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 36

  1. #21
    Señora Member Elfa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    269

    Default

    I think that the capacity for acting based on morality is natural for humans. But the moral rules vary from culture to culture. There is empathy, and some would say that even other animals may be empathetic, but I don't know if I would call it morality... I've seen a video of a cat trying to save another from a bath; a dog dragging a dead dog from a road full of cars passing by; and I read a researcher saw a monkey throwing a hurt bird, maybe to make it fly... It seems more like empathy to me...

  2. #22
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    I heard that morality is of a religious nature while ethics is secular. Oh yeah that was Peguy.

  3. #23
    Senior Member Munchies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    MBTI
    XNXP
    Enneagram
    OMG sx
    Socionics
    iuno
    Posts
    474

    Default

    Instrinsic? What is that? i can understand that killing someone for no reason is "wrong" due to my personal morals. but on a universal level, to say instrinsic implies a god which made laws. Lets not get into subjective objectivity
    1+1=3 OMFG

  4. #24
    Senior Member UniqueMixture's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    estj
    Enneagram
    378 sx/so
    Socionics
    esfp
    Posts
    3,038

    Default

    I mean intrinsic in the sense of being "controlled" by physical factors outside of the individual's control. So for example this is not saying you should/should not be sociable but rather that inclination towards sociability can increase with certain physical properties and that one needs not look only at the physicality of the thing in itself but also the networks of relationships it is tied to. So for example attractive people tend to develop better social skills because others seek out interaction with them more. They have to learn how to navigate other people's reactions to them better as a survival mechanism. This is why women tend to have better social skills than men however that one quality is not solely determinant of social development

  5. #25
    Certified Sausage Smoker Elfboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SLI None
    Posts
    9,635

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rasofy View Post
    Just to a small extent. I believe it's mostly social construction. 500 years ago most of you would be raised to believe slavery is a good thing - and would end up believing in it. Today, if I was born as an aborigine, I probably wouldn't feel very guilty about letting a defective baby die - first because it's what everybody does; second because he's supposed to be the incarnation of evil.
    no, just Fe users. the Fi users would still have known it was wrong
    ENFP: We put the Fi in Fire
    ENFP
    5w4>1w9>2w1 Sx/Sp
    SEE-Fi
    Papa Bear
    Motivation: Dark Worker
    Alignment: Chaotic Neutral
    Chibi Seme
    MTG Color: black/red
    Male Archtype: King/Lover
    Sunburst!
    "You are a gay version of Gambit" Speed Gavroche
    "I wish that I could be affected by any hate, but I can't, cuz I just get affected by the bank" Chamillionaire

  6. #26
    i love skylights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 so/sx
    Socionics
    EII Ne
    Posts
    7,835

    Default

    I think there is instinctive empathy and an instinctive sense of fairness, which combine to result in an instinctive facet to personal sense of morality.

    I tend to think of morality as operating in "spheres" though. In other words, in most situations, it is very context-bound. (Yes, including for Fi users! Fi is a process, not its contents!)

    For example - in terms of saving an old man or baby, my relationship with the two beings would impact who I chose to save, as would how much I knew about their relationships with other people. Were the child an orphan and the old man a lively, healthy grandfather of a large family, I would choose to save the old man, because of the extent of the impact on the people around him. My personal belief is that the importance of their lives is equal... so it is really a net zero in terms of losses and gains for saving one versus the other in terms of static morality. Thus I can move to the sphere of context - beyond the fairly black-and-white "all lives are equal" personal belief - to make an ethical decision.

  7. #27
    A window to the soul
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by skylights View Post
    I think there is instinctive empathy and an instinctive sense of fairness, which combine to result in an instinctive facet to personal sense of morality.

    I tend to think of morality as operating in "spheres" though. In other words, it is very context-bound. (Yes, including for Fi users! Fi is a process, not its contents!) In the example of saving an old man or baby, my relationship with the two beings would impact who I chose to save, as would how much I knew about their relationships with other people. Were the child an orphan and the old man a lively, healthy grandfather of a large family, I would choose to save the old man, because of the extent of the impact on the people around him. I feel like their lives are otherwise equal... so it is really a net zero in terms of losses and gains for saving one versus the other in terms of static morality.
    Interesting. I would do the opposite. I would save the orphaned baby because it's helpless, and its life has just begun. My relationship wouldn't impact my decision.

  8. #28
    Wake, See, Sing, Dance Cellmold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,808

    Default

    Interesting topic. Ill admit my own view is somewhere between understanding the necessity for our own morals and laws and at the same time knowing that they only work because we want them to.

    I dont know if creatures besides humans, (and maybe intelligent ones like dolphins), can really have an idea about morality. For most animals life and death are just things that happen, I dont believe they attach anything to them and the same goes for theirs and other creatures actions.

    Then of course as others have said; natural disasters, regardless of scale, do not care who they hurt or what happens to others, since there is likely no consciousness to guide it.

    However in the context of humanity, I believe the very makeup of our minds lends us towards the formation of moral values. Always being the social, group, creatures that we are means that it is part of our survival. It might be seen as not intrinsic since it is often a case of social osmosis that teaches us such values growing up, but to me I see the cultivating of moral values within human groupings as something inevitable, of course the interesting part is whether or not those morals are good or bad depending upon who is viewing them at the time and how their own moral opinions have been formed.

    Of course this could also be interesting from the side of objective vs subjective. Objectively it seems better to protect the group as a whole, sometimes this might lead into ostracisation or even killing of those who were previously part of the group so as to benefit the rest. Subjectively it is better to protect individuals and then lead that into a view of the whole using the subtleties of a situation. For a subjective viewpoint, cutting someone off or down would not always be neccessary for the benefit of the group and may over time, hurt it.

    In any case, as I said before, interesting topic.

  9. #29
    royal member Rasofy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    5,932

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Elfboy View Post
    no, just Fe users. the Fi users would still have known it was wrong

    There's no right or wrong, it's a matter of convenience.
    -----------------

    A man builds. A parasite asks 'Where is my share?'
    A man creates. A parasite says, 'What will the neighbors think?'
    A man invents. A parasite says, 'Watch out, or you might tread on the toes of God... '


    -----------------

  10. #30
    i love skylights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 so/sx
    Socionics
    EII Ne
    Posts
    7,835

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerd Girl View Post
    Interesting. I would do the opposite. I would save the orphaned baby because it's helpless, and its life has just begun. My relationship wouldn't impact my decision.
    I've been in an ethics class that had this discussion and we were actually divided about half and half. The ones who said the old man say because he has so many connections to life, while the baby is somewhat of a free floater; the ones who said the baby mainly said the baby hasn't gotten the chance to live or exert its free will yet, whereas the old man has, so the old man has "had his turn" while the baby still "deserves" one. I feel like either way it sucks. I don't really see either choice being more morally correct than the other... just different.

Similar Threads

  1. Moral Compass Test
    By rivercrow in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 87
    Last Post: 01-31-2009, 02:01 AM
  2. Morality question/dillema.
    By Wolf in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 05-15-2007, 09:51 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