User Tag List

First 234

Results 31 to 37 of 37

Thread: Morality in NTs

  1. #31
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by greed View Post
    Let's work from your view that NFs have a more adequate sense of handling emotions than NTs.

    If you reason from the wrong set of assumptions--such as a "faulty" initial emotional response--you've still drawn incorrect conclusions. Therefore, while an NT might be able to reason in such a manner, that isn't all that's necessary to provide the "correct" response to a moral situation.
    Indeed -- a central aspect of morality is the capacity to analyze the consequences of one's action. At the individual level, when evaluating somebody else's likely emotional response, NFs would probably excel. On the other hand, when dealing with more broader issues (deciding whether or not to support a particular war, say), NTs would generally arrive at more accurate conclusions.

  2. #32
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sytpg View Post
    Morality will always be a relative concept. There is nothing that all of the human race can agree upon as right or wrong. No single concept.
    I agree with most of your post with the exception of this statement. I'm sure everyone could agree that acting in a moral manner is equivalent to acting so as to produce the greatest good. Obviously, there are moral doctrines that are opposed to this view (deontological ethics, moral relativism, etc.), but they are wrong and even pernicious. People can disagree about what promoting the greatest good entails, but they should be united in their conception of morality as a struggle to maximize utility. And that is precisely what morality is, whether everybody acknowledges it or not.

    An NF is not as interested in "petty charity" as you might think. We are called idealists for a reason.
    I don't mean to suggest that NFs are the only ones afflicted by moral narrow-mindedness: almost everyone cares more about their immediate (emotional) neighborhood, comprised of those with whom they have the closest connection, than faraway places. (Even I do, despite being an NT.) For example, several dozen people have given a kidney to a complete stranger while hundreds of thousands have donated one to a close relative.

  3. #33
    Senior Member Moiety's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ISFJ
    Posts
    6,020

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Begoner View Post
    I agree with most of your post with the exception of this statement. I'm sure everyone could agree that acting in a moral manner is equivalent to acting so as to produce the greatest good.
    Hmm. I'd say personally, it is more concerned acting (or not acting) so as to not produce evil, than it is in acting so as to produce good. Which I guess might be framed as acting so as to produce the greatest good...but just wanted to clarify.

    Regardless, I meant every human agreeing on the answer to any one moral question. Not to what morality actually is. Agreeing on whether X is right or wrong. "The greatest good" is still always subjective.

    Quote Originally Posted by Begoner View Post
    Obviously, there are moral doctrines that are opposed to this view (deontological ethics, moral relativism, etc.), but they are wrong and even pernicious. People can disagree about what promoting the greatest good entails, but they should be united in their conception of morality as a struggle to maximize utility. And that is precisely what morality is, whether everybody acknowledges it or not.
    Says who? I disagree on morality being concerned with utility. Morality can represent personal identity. It can't count the number of times I've argued against something or someone out of principle, even when it merely brought me or other people undesirable consequences.

    I guess what I mean is that the maximization of utility is itself entirely subjective. Utilitarianism is the only (?) view that would make sense if that weren't the case.


    [QUOTE=Begoner;1018818I don't mean to suggest that NFs are the only ones afflicted by moral narrow-mindedness: almost everyone cares more about their immediate (emotional) neighborhood, comprised of those with whom they have the closest connection, than faraway places. (Even I do, despite being an NT.) For example, several dozen people have given a kidney to a complete stranger while hundreds of thousands have donated one to a close relative.[/QUOTE]

    When the choice is between someone you like vs a stranger, morality would have you be unbiased. So the decision to help one of the individuals and not the other has to based on something else. Still on logic and emotions, but not on what is more or less moral, since in this case none is (more OR less, they are equally as moral or immoral).

  4. #34
    Senior Member wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by entropie View Post
    You know, I have that discrepancy with my MBTI type from day one. In which I when starting to get intrested in MBTI I read about the NF type being the one who are grounded in morality.

    I can sign that statement, cause living together with a NF for 4 years now showed me how many things there really are happening in the real world that do hurt people and could be done way better.

    It's often those little things and you prolly all know what I mean, when someone gets pissy at the other in the line at the shopping market and the others one reacts pissy aswell. So there is no mutual understanding between people, people rather think their opinion is the only right one and everyone should feel that too.

    So with morality I dont even mean the common understanding in a loyal or military sense only, I mean to have the ability to to some degree anticipate others thoughts and empathize with them.

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

    In the four years with my girlfriend I learned much about that. I too was able to calm her down a bit about different things that otherwise would her made be sent to prison by the police for comitting murder .

    So nowadays I might claim that I have developed a finer sense for the life of others and I am more careful when judging their reactions towards me, if there isnt more behind it. Meaning, I dont think of myself as the center of the universe no more, like many people do with their opinions.

    But this kind of attitude ( you may have better words for it, I suck at human ethics / philosophy ) was inspired by my girl, but not created, it was always there.

    So do you think, the term morality in its widest sense, does necessarily need someone to be NF to have it ? Or would you agree that the respectful way to live together with other human beings and have an open mind and imagination for their worldview is a thing every reasonable man can posess ?

    ( Dont pick on me, I am way out my league with that topic )
    A good post.
    This is exactly it.
    Anticipation of the thought processes of the other excludes law and order.
    Anarchy does not.

    Morality is subjective.
    Field does not center.

  5. #35
    a scream in a vortex nanook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,361

    Default

    if you live in reality, you must find that the thought process of the other includes law and order, so must anticipation of it, since conformism is one of the most basic stages of consciousness, and as such one of the most common thought forms (since higher stages are only reached by a minority) - even if two post-conformistic people (they are really "trans-confromistic" meaning they transcend and include essential conformism) come together and anticipate each others thoughts, they will still both utilize the essential forms of conforming cognition, consciously or not, even though they abandon the rigid outside/outspoken forms of original conformism. the whole idea of the intelligent anarchist is a convention, but its not based on or enforced by outspoken rules but on internalized conformizing cognition (*see footnote). both abiding to rules (understanding them) and creating them is done by the mental organ of conformism, eventhough some poorly grown organs are biased to one or the other: creativity and analysis. the organ can never be abandoned.
    true anarchists (nihilists) are pre-conventional fuckheads.

    it's wrong to assume that the presence of a conformizing organ is a synonym for strong morality.
    morality itself progresses through stages, of which an early on is shaped by the conforming organ.
    visualize the line/vine growing through it, being modulated by it.

    but since original/absolute conformism is so fucking popular, it has become a synonym of moral (in people's minds), hence a lot of post(trans)-conformistic people like myself have the stupid habit of feeling criminal and guilty about our differences with original external conformism and then we try to defend (or define) us with a thick skinned punk attitude ("fuck moral"), thus we end up on the same parties that are frequentent by pre-conformistic fuckheads and in this pre-trans-fallacy we are all surprised if we end up with a an actual knife in our ribs, while we are singing the chorus of some fucking gangsta rap song. "whoa! i thought this was just a game. seen it on TV" its a projection of our unconscious conformism: we assume that "gangsta" is a "game of expression" meaning a convention, when it is really a serious pre-conventional "fuck it or kill it". we need to integrate our conformizing organ consciously, to avoid such projections.

    *according to my dictionary, conformizing may be a fantasy word of mine. i mean the creative/synthesizing activity of the conformistic organ as opposed to the analytic/understanding activity which is probably called "conforming", i guess. (me haz german mother tongue)

  6. #36
    Arcesso pulli gingerios! Eldanen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    ENTp
    Posts
    697

    Default

    I don't have much in the way of codified rules of morality.

    It's interesting how the people who say they are moral and those who have high ideals seem to be the ones who cause the most problems for other people.

  7. #37
    Senior Member wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eldanen View Post
    I don't have much in the way of codified rules of morality.

    It's interesting how the people who say they are moral and those who have high ideals seem to be the ones who cause the most problems for other people.
    Law and order serves a purpose, no less.
    The other people inhabit the prisons.

    They cause problems primarily to themselves.
    Occasionally to other people as well.
    But it is in comparison a minor matter.

    It is expensive to have the other people jailed.
    It would be even more expensive to have them out of jail.

Similar Threads

  1. [NT] the morality of NTs
    By ThatGirl in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 102
    Last Post: 01-24-2014, 01:41 AM
  2. Your Morality, In A Nutshell
    By Thalassa in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 119
    Last Post: 07-23-2012, 12:56 PM
  3. Struggle with morality in a capitalist world
    By PeaceRobin in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 01-24-2011, 05:53 PM
  4. [NT] physical violence in NTs
    By murkrow in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 08-08-2009, 01:40 PM
  5. What was Socrates view on morality in The Republic?
    By WobblyStilettos in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 10-23-2008, 11:57 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