[MBTI General] right and wrong

[Take Five]

So I am wondering whether NFs consider their views about right and wrong to be objective or subjective. The INFP I know refuses to accept any form of absolutism, even though he seems to have an unbending stance on several issues when I ask him about specifics. It's this "I don't judge" attitude. He sees me as having a mostly black and white view, so is this an NF thing? Do NFs have any sense of universal morality or ethics, do they just not admit to it, or are all of them relativists?

 

[Tiltyred]

There is such a thing as right and wrong. It just doesn't have much application regarding human beings, because we're all imperfect. And at the great risk of sounding sanctimonious, nobody make me the judge. The commandment I got was "love one another." That is the more important than right or wrong.

 

[Take Five]

So to love is right and to hate is wrong then, correct? That's exactly the kind of response...

 

[StoryOfMyLife]

So to love is right and to hate is wrong then, correct? That's exactly the kind of response...

My favorite phrase, or way of looking at it, comes from a keychain I once saw...

"I don't discriminate. I hate everyone equally."

I can't speak for other NFs, but I can speak for myself...I'm not always so easily persuaded, but I also don't always think I'm 'right', however when I do think or KNOW that I am right, you're going to get an argument if you blatantly disagree and tell me that I am wrong. My logic might not make sense to some people, but if it makes sense to me then I'm going to go with it... Not to say my opinions can't be changed, however. It just all depends on the approach or if I think it perhaps makes better sense than what I believe.

...on the other hand, the 'non-judgmental' side of me says 'believe what you like, I'll believe what I like, if you don't cross the line, we can coexist peacefully side by side...'.

 

[Take Five]

That helps. So it's kind of like dividing a room with some one and saying "Don't touch my stuff, or you're going to get an argument." Is the "line" you mentioned limited to things that affect you, that affect you and and those close to you, that affect everyone?

 

[SillySapienne]

I am a moral universalist.

Moral universalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[EcK]

Right is when I'm not going left. Wrong is when I want to go right but I still got left for some reason.
Do I get a cookie for answering correctly ?

 

[Moiety]

So I am wondering whether NFs consider their views about right and wrong to be objective or subjective. The INFP I know refuses to accept any form of absolutism, even though he seems to have an unbending stance on several issues when I ask him about specifics. It's this "I don't judge" attitude. He sees me as having a mostly black and white view, so is this an NF thing? Do NFs have any sense of universal morality or ethics, do they just not admit to it, or are all of them relativists?

I can relate to your INFP friend a lot. But I still like to believe that my "unbending stances" are at least partially based on logic.

 

[EcK]

Yeah the kantian view on logic is good I guess, it allow for the NT and NF views to really converge
It's basically about how we do or do not do things based on the way the world would be if EVERYBODY did it.
If I steal, and I ask myself "what if everybody does that", and so on for everything.
It's both based upon logics and empathy.

But then Right , Wrong and the rest of morals are still social constructs, you wouldn't need them if you were living in a cave or whatever.

From an evolutionary perspective I'd have to say some things are just encoded into us. Take a lion, a lion wouldn't eat he's kids if hungry. The same kind of rules apply to humans.
So yeh, 'morals' have as a base; some evolutionary imperatives, but it doesn't make them intellectually 'righter'.

 

[Take Five]

Yeah the kantian view on logic is good I guess, it allow for the NT and NF views to really converge
It's basically about how we do or do not do things based on the way the world would be if EVERYBODY did it.
If I steal, and I ask myself "what if everybody does that", and so on for everything.
It's both based upon logics and empathy.

But then Right , Wrong and the rest of morals are still social constructs, you wouldn't need them if you were living in a cave or whatever.

I disagree with the last part, but what I'm hearing is kinda familiar. Do you consider yourself a moral relativist?

 

[EcK]

I disagree with the last part, but what I'm hearing is kinda familiar. Do you consider yourself a moral relativist?

yup totally, moral serves goals, evolutionary or socially speaking. I'm no anarchist, I get why things work the way they do. But when the context changes I noticed people who were too attached to the view that 'morals are absolute' would act like barnacles for the whole society.
On the other hand it can also be used as some kind of 'security belt' against uncontrolled progress (stamp cells and so on) (i'm totally FOR stamp cells research btw but still, reckless freedom to do anything with it could be bad)

 

[Blueberry LaLa]

It's all shades of gray, man.

Some shades are darker and some are lighter -- some perceptibly and some imperceptibly. And somewhere along that continuum, there's a wobbly, looping line I draw that depends on the case at hand and how I feel at the moment.

 

[Moiety]

Yeah the kantian view on logic is good I guess, it allow for the NT and NF views to really converge
It's basically about how we do or do not do things based on the way the world would be if EVERYBODY did it.
If I steal, and I ask myself "what if everybody does that", and so on for everything.
It's both based upon logics and empathy.

But then Right , Wrong and the rest of morals are still social constructs, you wouldn't need them if you were living in a cave or whatever.

From an evolutionary perspective I'd have to say some things are just encoded into us. Take a lion, a lion wouldn't eat he's kids if hungry. The same kind of rules apply to humans.
So yeh, 'morals' have as a base; some evolutionary imperatives, but it doesn't make them intellectually 'righter'.

Morality is relative. Very much so. But whenever discussing right and wrong what really matters is : in which cases are people willing to punish (prsion etc) others for going against their values? And what should be the criteria?

 

[placebo]

I have a sense of it, but most people adopt a relativist view on morality and in that case, that is what you recieve. To be honest, and I don't know if this has to do with my type, but whenever I think of ethics I hate it. In my day to day life moral issues are few--there is no right or wrong--just because it confuses me greatly. There are no clear rules (such as in the realm of logic).

One person's right is another person's wrong on a given moral issue. Do we then say that they are both right in their own contexts (relativism) or that one of them is possibly right, in which case the other must be wrong, or both are completely wrong (universal moral truths)? To be sure, I have a great discomfort in moral relativism in some cases, because it ends up justifying some terrible things. But there is great difficulty in identifying what is a moral fact.

It does seem to me though, there is the possibility of a few universal principles that human cultures throughout history might share, and from there, everything within these principles is relative. This is only a vague idea that I hold--no doubt if I eventually learn more on what has been discussed about ethics, I might understand better.

 

[Fife]

Do you think the opinions of NFs on this topic is dependant upon the P/J dimension?

My own view is that reality is objective, independent of our observations.

As far as morals and ethics go, wouldn't that be dependant upon the absolute nature of things? Assuming God exists, surely its up to the ruler to make the rules/laws? There would then be a right and wrong, in the sense of transgression of or adherence to those laws. From an atheistic or pantheistic view point there wouldn't be that same measure, and absolute right and wrong wouldn't exist. So the basis you start with influences your final decision about morality.

Naturally the world is complex, and there will be situations where two or more principles come into play.

 

[Moiety]

Do you think the opinions of NFs on this topic is dependant upon the P/J dimension?

My own view is that reality is objective, independent of our observations.

As far as morals and ethics go, wouldn't that be dependant upon the absolute nature of things? Assuming God exists, surely its up to the ruler to make the rules/laws? There would then be a right and wrong, in the sense of transgression of or adherence to those laws. From an atheistic or pantheistic view point there wouldn't be that same measure, and absolute right and wrong wouldn't exist. So the basis you start with influences your final decision about morality.

Wouldn't that make reality subjective and dependent on our observations and the "filters" we use to view the world?

 

[Fife]

Wouldn't that make reality subjective and dependent on our observations and the "filters" we use to view the world?

Nope. What I'm talking about there is our own decision as to whether there is an absolute right and wrong. That's based partly on our opinion as to the nature of reality.

The actual nature of reality is independant of our observations. Even if reality is constant flux, that would be reality. I have a feeling that in society today we've gone from saying "Reality is objective, but our senses and minds cannot accurately comprehend even our part of it" and "therefore no observation is entirely accurate" to "reality is subjective." It isn't, but our observations of it will be.

 

[Gauche]

Well, for me, as NF (enfp) there aren't very important global morals. Of course, I consider something like universal morals, but I'd rather look at it in the certain situation. With regards on circumstances, and from the look of the person who is concerned. For me one thing done can have many explanations. It depends on circumstances. The very same thing can be very different for me in two different situations. So I'd call myself a relativist, if you need a term to label me. But I do not label myself.

 

[nolla]

So I am wondering whether NFs consider their views about right and wrong to be objective or subjective. The INFP I know refuses to accept any form of absolutism, even though he seems to have an unbending stance on several issues when I ask him about specifics. It's this "I don't judge" attitude. He sees me as having a mostly black and white view, so is this an NF thing? Do NFs have any sense of universal morality or ethics, do they just not admit to it, or are all of them relativists?

For me this is a case of conflicting values. On the other hand there is the relative concept of "freedom" and on the other hand, another relative concept of "right". If I was to believe 100% in either of these values, my life would become impossible, unless I go and live as a hermit.

I have some kind of solution for this (not perfect, though). I consider motives a lot. This makes me quite forgiving because there aren't many people with "evil" motives. But, at the same time it allows me to keep a strict moral code for myself and have my freedom. See, if I am strict about my motives, I never do anything "wrong" consciously, but still I can do many things that wouldn't be possible if I had a moral code based on actions instead of motives. This allows me theoretically to do some illegal stuff still think of myself as being moral and good. So, this way of thinking maximizes my freedom but still sets limits that are not to be crossed.

Oh, and one more thing. This moral code of mine should also include "understanding" somehow. It makes the relativity come out even more, since if there is a person who does wrong things, but doesn't have understanding adequate to see the wrong, we should be teaching them, not punishing them. On the other hand if someone understands his actions and still does wrong, then he is the closest thing to evil that I can imagine.

Maybe I am repeating myself. I hope this makes sense, it's a bit hard to explain.

 

[Clownmaster]

Take a lion, a lion wouldn't eat he's kids if hungry.

Never heard of animals eating their young, have you?