User Tag List

First 456

Results 51 to 54 of 54

  1. #51
    darkened dreams labyrinthine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    isfp
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    8,586

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    * can morality be rational? Can [subjective] morality be rational?
    People's behaviors, feelings, perceptions, ideals make up a kind of imprecise data. No one can know with 100% certainty what motivates a behavior or what a particular emotional experience is like through someone else's eyes. If enough time is spent gathering this subjective data, it is possible to make approximations. Because it has these fuzzy boundaries, it requires taking in more nuance information overall before patterns evolve. You have to get a baseline for how an individual or society operates and that requires paying attention to a lot of details. Just because a certain type of data is approximate by its nature, this doesn't mean it cannot be processed in a rational manner.

    Morality is constructed rationally when it takes in as much of the complete picture as possible. It is the art of observing and understanding the cause and effect relationships in these approximate, experiential systems.

    Edit: Let's address the issue of caring about people. Some propose it isn't logical. If it were true that individuals do not rely on others for survival, then I could understand that argument. Of course caring about people is logical if you want to have a support system to survive in the world. Think about when you grow old - the person who was caring and formed a support network is going to survive those years of increasing feebleness with much more strength and grace than the person who has ostracized everyone. This is exactly what I am talking about when I say it requires viewing the big picture played out over time to understand all the cause and effect relationships of behaviors. To come closer to home, you would not presently exist if your mother or guardian didn't care about you. The fact that humans have vulnerable offspring is why we developed the instinct to care. To go against that natural design is both arbitrary and irrational.

    I'll look back over the thread in search of someone who has made some kind of argument demonstrating that it is more logical to not care - besides merely stating a supposed correlation. Edit: Maybe we should define morality. My premise is that morality is not defined by social constructs like religion. That is one manifestation of it, but those constructs can become arbitrary and then distort the natural course and in this way become irrational. When I use the word, "morality", it refers to any ideal that supposes having a constructive outcome for the group and so includes the ideals of caring, responsibility, honesty and other such things depending on the context.
    Step into my metaphysical room of mirrors.
    Fear of reality creates myopic morality
    So I guess it means there is trouble until the robins come
    (from Blue Velvet)

    I want to be just like my mother, even if she is bat-shit crazy.

  2. #52
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default The devil requested an advocate

    Quote Originally Posted by JAVO View Post
    The problem with subjective morality is that it can more easily conflict with objective morality, or someone else's subjective morality. At least those with objective morality speak a common language: reason.
    We are in a room filled with various gizmos and gagetry (and TOYS!). I am standing directly in front of you, both in the center, and you see my world behind me, just as I can only see *your* world behind you.

    The firetruck is to your right, but ...to my left. The Biker Barbie, furthest left. No, I mean, your left. But...my right.

    We may objectively know to give directions by an absolute. Because absolute assumes 1. (Agreed upon) 1. But, in our everyday dealings, it is very rare we can know which way is our North, South, East, West...

    So, if you were to narrarate my world, you would either need to say it as how you see it, or, take that extra effort, to rewire the brain and see from another perspective. Mine.

    And, this room....we encounter everyday in life. Where absolutes are moot, not just ours, but are mine, yours, his, hers, its, theirs, perceptions. Depending on where each of us are standing (and interacting..and how) with others in that room. Time. Change. Constant kinetic motion.

    And, in here comes, imo, the value of subjective morality. If the room was the actual world, and situations got even more muddy than left & right and up and down...with such things as compassion, love, kinship, altruism, friendships.

    I think we can still find a common reason for such subjective need for morality.

    A few admittedly extreme examples:

    Case 1: Stranded on a Desert Island
    Subjective morality: We can't eat the only bird on this island! He is stuck here in the same battle for survival as us.

    Objective morality: Many people eat birds every day. We will die if we don't eat that bird. It has lost the battle for survival.
    Well, if we want to optimize survival, without any mushy kinship, religion, or otherwise, subjective shyte kicking in....we should battle out each other, victor eats the loser. Heartier meal. Who cares if you only eat birds every day and humans no day. You will die, man, you will die! Eat the brother!

    * Caveat ^: now if the 'we' you speak of, was the other a female...that above eating analogy, would take a...ahem...nose-dive...and, may change the argument...

    Case 2: My Religion is The Truth
    Subjective morality: My religion is The Truth. People who do not accept it are evil because they either cannot see the Truth, or reject it. They should die to further the cause of Truth.
    I would try to counter this...but in my head, on repeat: religions are whack. Sorry, no go!

    Objective morality: Humankind would descend into chaos, and possibly extinction if people were allowed to kill others, therefore, killing someone is immoral.
    The only thing that affords us this: the theory of objective morality...that there is ONE TRUTH to how the world works. Is. Our. Mind. Without which, we wouldn't have this discussion of objective truths. Nor...morals. Either way.

    Quote Originally Posted by JAVO View Post
    I thought maybe I was just a bad person.
    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    We're You're not.
    Quote Originally Posted by JAVO View Post
    I am. You're not.

    Damn straight! (you and/or me)


  3. #53
    darkened dreams labyrinthine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    isfp
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    8,586

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    My INFP mama on why not to leave our pet bird out while her friends may gather in the house.

    Me: Is it because it annoys the guests? Because, if it's not a formal get-togther, just your friends dropping by, why would you feel the need to move her?

    Mama: It's inhumane, because they don't understand her (the bird)....so when they laugh at her tricks/antics, it's not like us (meaning the family), who have learned and now understand her ways.

    Me:
    Having faulty data is not going to produce the most rational outcome. If the assumptions are incorrect then the principle of caring for the bird's feeling may be misapplied. The first step is to determine the needs of the bird. The bird does not experience embarrassment in a human context. That is projection. It is false information. The bird could possible experience some kind of anxiety at having a large number of unfamiliar creatures in the house making noise. The guests could pose a threat or seem predatory if they chase the bird or make noise. If this will upset the bird on the birds terms and in a completely bird-like experience, then it is moral to take into consideration the bird's well-being and keep her away from the guests and remain in peace.

    The danger of using projection instead the closest possible approximation to understanding the bird's experience is that the resulting decisions are less likely to have a positive, or desired, outcome if the data is flawed. It take more time, more study of bird behavior, etc. to actually glimpse what it is like for the bird and not merely a projection of self.

    Edit: So the next question may be: Why is it rational to care about the bird's feelings at all? Self does not exist in isolation. Whether or not we are conscious of it, we define self through a hierarchical series of identities. This is why we most closely identify with self, and still intimately with family, strongly with friends and community, and often possess loyalties to larger social structures of a religious, political, MBTI category, ethnicity, member of humanity, species on the planet, etc. If positive experiences (avoidance of fear and pain) are to be desired for self, then it makes sense to also desire them for family which is akin to self. My position is that it is irrational to value a positive experience for self and not others. It requires a deeply subjective, ego-centric position to not be able to identify that there is no tangible difference between self and other. The quality of my own life is not of greater value than the quality of your life. We are equal beings. It requires becoming completely lost in the ego to not recognize that. The only objective position is to see equal beings, equal experiences, as literally equivalent and to solve problems accordingly.
    Step into my metaphysical room of mirrors.
    Fear of reality creates myopic morality
    So I guess it means there is trouble until the robins come
    (from Blue Velvet)

    I want to be just like my mother, even if she is bat-shit crazy.

  4. #54
    Don't pet me. JAVO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    6,050

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    We are in a room filled with various gizmos and gagetry (and TOYS!). I am standing directly in front of you, both in the center, and you see my world behind me, just as I can only see *your* world behind you. ...blah blah blah blah...
    I'm not falling for your distraction tactics. Let's stay focused on the real issue: Give me back my firetruck! Mine!

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    We may objectively know to give directions by an absolute. Because absolute assumes 1. (Agreed upon) 1. But, in our everyday dealings, it is very rare we can know which way is our North, South, East, West...
    Maybe this should be an argument for the necessity of defining an absolute?

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    And, this room....we encounter everyday in life. Where absolutes are moot, not just ours, but are mine, yours, his, hers, its, theirs, perceptions. Depending on where each of us are standing (and interacting..and how) with others in that room. Time. Change. Constant kinetic motion.
    They're not moot, just glossed over!

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    And, in here comes, imo, the value of subjective morality. If the room was the actual world, and situations got even more muddy than left & right and up and down...with such things as compassion, love, kinship, altruism, friendships.

    I think we can still find a common reason for such subjective need for morality.
    I likely agree with you. I think the objective needs to be defined before there is a basis for the subjective, otherwise nothing has meaning beyond an individual.


    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    Well, if we want to optimize survival, without any mushy kinship, religion, or otherwise, subjective shyte kicking in....we should battle out each other, victor eats the loser. Heartier meal. Who cares if you only eat birds every day and humans no day. You will die, man, you will die! Eat the brother!

    * Caveat ^: now if the 'we' you speak of, was the other a female...that above eating analogy, would take a...ahem...nose-dive...and, may change the argument...


    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    I would try to counter this...but in my head, on repeat: religions are whack. Sorry, no go!
    I concede this mute point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    The only thing that affords us this: the theory of objective morality...that there is ONE TRUTH to how the world works. Is. Our. Mind. Without which, we wouldn't have this discussion of objective truths. Nor...morals. Either way.
    Our mind maybe, but not everyone's. I would say the objective truth is logic and reason. My informal research shows that 98% of minds are not operating in the context of this objective truth.

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    Damn straight! (you and/or me)

    Wait! If you're the Devil's advocate, then maybe you are a bad person!

Similar Threads

  1. [NF] INFP - The moral challenger
    By Fay in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-19-2015, 03:46 PM
  2. [INFP] Is INFP the airhead type?
    By neo in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 06-07-2014, 04:19 PM
  3. [INFP] INFP-The cold shoulder-the ignoring......
    By Soar337 in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 02-23-2011, 12:40 PM
  4. [INFP] INFP: The Worst Public Speaker?
    By Azseroffs in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 04-15-2009, 01:47 AM
  5. [INFP] INFP: the worst speech giver?
    By Azseroffs in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-09-2009, 01:25 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