User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 78

  1. #31
    Secret Sex Freak Hazashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx/sp
    Socionics
    INFj
    Posts
    1,157

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RevlisZero View Post
    The Fi users on this thread were saying they reject moral nihilism, which implies that they believe in objective moral truths. I was arguing for moral nihilism.
    Oh, then I agree with you.
    MBTI: INFP
    Enneagram: 6w7, phobic
    Tritype: 6-9-2
    Instinctual Variant: Sx/Sp
    Temperament: Pure Supine
    D&D Alignment: Neutral Good
    Political Stance: Solid Liberal
    Religious Views: Atheist

    Fi > Ne > Ti > Fe > Se > Si > Te > Ni

    "Forgiveness means letting go of the past." ~ Gerald Jampolsky
    "I am justice!" ~ Light Yagami, Death Note
    "The choices people make tell you a lot about a person, but the reasons [...] tell you even more." ~ Albus Dumbledore (paraphrased)

    Tatiana ♥

  2. #32
    libtard SJW chickpea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,966

    Default

    i agree that there are no absolute morals, even killing someone, because everything is situational. that doesn't mean i don't have my own personal morals that i live by and judge others by, but i accept that my feelings towards things shouldn't necessarily be the way they are. people's values are always shifting.

  3. #33
    Senior Member Silveresque's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,280

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Huxley3112 View Post
    heres another question- if we say that no moral objective truth can ever be known.. is not the existance of this concept attempting to be a moral objective truth in and of itself? *brain hurts* I don't understand how it can proven, how can it be fact?
    The question of whether there exists a moral objective truth is one that has puzzled philosophers since the beginning of time (well, since the beginning of philosophers, anyways). It's one of those BIG questions that can never be answered because there will never be solid physical evidence to point one way or the other.

    And to answer the first part of your question, saying that no moral objective truth can ever be known is not a moral objective truth. It is an opinion, belief, or theory, and that's all it can ever be.

  4. #34
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    1,674

    Default

    Well "morality" is a vague and ambiguous term. Possibly the most vague and ambiguous I have ever heard. By some definitions a human can be amoral, by others morality is a necessary condition in order to make decisions, so a human cannot be amoral (and neither can a computer or the law).

    Moral Nihilism, as defined in the OP, is the idea that there are no moral facts, that nothing has "right" or "wrong", "good" or "bad" as one of its properties. Instead, it states that morality is relative to the observer, so the observer assigns those properties to something observed. So if one changes the observer, the "morality" of the observed "changes" as well, without the observed actually changing (a tree remains a tree, and a murder remains a murder, yet now it is good instead of bad, and right instead of wrong).

    In this sense, morality is the same as beauty, color and various other traits widely accepted as being dependant on the observer. So, there's no actual "good" or "bad", "right" or "wrong", merely what the observer decides to describe what it observes as. Thus a Moral Nihilist, someone who believes this all to be fact, sees morality as something "made up", a human construct that is entirely arbitrary (not based on anything substantial, and easily changed).

    That leaves them in a state of moral inertia, where nothing is truly moral or immoral. It does not leave them without morality however, as this Moral Nihilism claims morality exists as a human/animal/sentient construct, and they are all three.

    My view on Moral Nihilism is positive, I suppose, as my beliefs coincide between Moral Nihilists and Hedonists, an unsolved debate in my mind. That morality is an arbitrary construct, solely in the mind, I agree with, but I'm unsure what that construct actually consists of. Whether, when I have a positive experience, I am witnessing something good in itself, but restricted to my mind, or whether I am deluded into thinking it is good. Evolution supports both ideas equally, and "being convinced the experience is good actually making it good" is a confusing possibility to consider. I'm yet to think of a way to get data that would favour one side over the other, so the debate remains unsolved (though I lean towards Hedonism as of now, due to one line of reasoning).

    What's funny is I think Nihilists (that is just "Nihilists"), those that think life is meaningless, are quite deluded (specifically, they misunderstand what "meaning" is). They are usually lumped together with Moral Nihilists.

  5. #35
    Senior Member Silveresque's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,280

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erm View Post
    Well "morality" is a vague and ambiguous term. Possibly the most vague and ambiguous I have ever heard. By some definitions a human can be amoral, by others morality is a necessary condition in order to make decisions, so a human cannot be amoral (and neither can a computer or the law).

    Moral Nihilism, as defined in the OP, is the idea that there are no moral facts, that nothing has "right" or "wrong", "good" or "bad" as one of its properties. Instead, it states that morality is relative to the observer, so the observer assigns those properties to something observed. So if one changes the observer, the "morality" of the observed "changes" as well, without the observed actually changing (a tree remains a tree, and a murder remains a murder, yet now it is good instead of bad, and right instead of wrong).

    In this sense, morality is the same as beauty, color and various other traits widely accepted as being dependant on the observer. So, there's no actual "good" or "bad", "right" or "wrong", merely what the observer decides to describe what it observes as. Thus a Moral Nihilist, someone who believes this all to be fact, sees morality as something "made up", a human construct that is entirely arbitrary (not based on anything substantial, and easily changed).

    That leaves them in a state of moral inertia, where nothing is truly moral or immoral. It does not leave them without morality however, as this Moral Nihilism claims morality exists as a human/animal/sentient construct, and they are all three.

    My view on Moral Nihilism is positive, I suppose, as my beliefs coincide between Moral Nihilists and Hedonists, an unsolved debate in my mind. That morality is an arbitrary construct, solely in the mind, I agree with, but I'm unsure what that construct actually consists of. Whether, when I have a positive experience, I am witnessing something good in itself, but restricted to my mind, or whether I am deluded into thinking it is good. Evolution supports both ideas equally, and "being convinced the experience is good actually making it good" is a confusing possibility to consider. I'm yet to think of a way to get data that would favour one side over the other, so the debate remains unsolved (though I lean towards Hedonism as of now, due to one line of reasoning).

    What's funny is I think Nihilists (that is just "Nihilists"), those that think life is meaningless, are quite deluded (specifically, they misunderstand what "meaning" is). Those two Nihilists are usually lumped together.
    I agree completely. And I like your idea that "morality is the same as beauty, color and various other traits widely accepted as being dependant on the observer". In other words, morality is an art, not a science.

  6. #36
    Senior Member Santosha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    MBTI
    HUMR
    Enneagram
    6 sx
    Socionics
    iNfp Ni
    Posts
    1,521

    Default

    Lao Tzu spawned the seeds of no objective truth in me about 10 years ago, with this:

    The perfect way knows no difficulties
    Except that it refuses to make preferences;
    Only when freed from hate and love
    It reveals itself fully and without disguise;
    A tenth of an inch's difference,
    And heaven and earth are set apart.
    If you wish to see it before your own eyes
    Have no fixed thoughts either for or against it.

    To set up what you like against what you dislike -
    That is the disease of the mind:
    When the deep meaning (of the Way) is not understood,
    Peace of mind is disturbed to no purpose.

    The Way is perfect like unto vast space,
    It is indeed due to making choice
    That its Suchness is lost sight of.

    Pursue not the outer entanglements,
    Dwell not in the inner Void;
    Be serene in the oneness of things,
    And dualism vanishes by itself.

    When you strive to gain quiescence by stopping motion,
    The quiescence thus gained is ever in motion;
    As long as you tarry in dualism,
    How can you realize oneness?

    And when oneness is not thoroughly understood,
    In two ways loss is sustained:
    The denying of reality is the asserting of it,
    And the asserting of emptiness is the denying of it.

    Wordliness and intellection -
    The more with them, the farther astray we go:
    Away, therefore, with wordliness and intellection,
    and there is no place where we cannot pass freely.

    When we return to the root, we gain the meaning;
    When we pursue external objects we lose the reason.
    The moment we are enlightened within,
    We go beyond the voidness of a world confronting us.

    Transformations going on in an empty world which confronts us
    Appear real all because of ignorance:
    Try not to seek after the true.
    Only cease to cherish opinions
    Man suffers only because he takes seriously what the gods made for fun - Watts

  7. #37
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chana View Post
    i agree that there are no absolute morals, even killing someone, because everything is situational. that doesn't mean i don't have my own personal morals that i live by and judge others by, but i accept that my feelings towards things shouldn't necessarily be the way they are. people's values are always shifting.
    I'm not a moral absolutist either (which is probably why I got Chaotic Neutral on that test I took) because I think that actions can be right or wrong depending on the situation and the consequences of those actions. I am more of a consequentialist.

    On the other hand, yes, I think murdering innocent people is always wrong, although killing is not always wrong. See the distinction?

  8. #38
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RevlisZero View Post
    I think it sounds more like a Fi thing. Objective truth sounds more Te to me than anything else, so I'm kind of surprised that so many Fi users would believe in such a thing. I would have thought they would agree that morality is the same as personal values, and that we can never really know the truth.
    Well Fi in its most mature form actually seeks universal underlying consistent morality that exists outside of varying cultural normative values. Like what is always considered "bad" in most human civilizations, et al? Yes, Fi seeks internal truth based upon personal ethics, and in the youngest, unhealthiest or least mature Fi user that can come across as purely self-absorbed (though still empathetic to suffering, I think one of the core traits of Fi is that even as children Fi users project empathy of their own suffering onto other suffering creatures, and therefore "feel the pain of others" ...yet can wallow and get bogged down in it...which is what is less mature, I guess) ...and in its most mature form Fi seeks to find what underlying core values seem to make us all similar as human beings, despite our varying cultures and belief systems.

  9. #39
    libtard SJW chickpea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,966

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marmie Dearest View Post
    I'm not a moral absolutist either (which is probably why I got Chaotic Neutral on that test I took) because I think that actions can be right or wrong depending on the situation and the consequences of those actions. I am more of a consequentialist.

    On the other hand, yes, I think murdering innocent people is always wrong, although killing is not always wrong. See the distinction?
    i fully understand and agree, but there's still a lot of gray area in that, because everyone has their own ideas of who's innocent and who's guilty.

    i'm not questioning this kind of stuff with every value judgement i make, but it keeps me from being preachy (sometimes) because i know that i could be potentially be wrong about everything.

  10. #40
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chana View Post
    i fully understand and agree, but there's still a lot of gray area in that, because everyone has their own ideas of who's innocent and who's guilty.

    i'm not questioning this kind of stuff with every value judgement i make, but it keeps me from being preachy (sometimes) because i know that i could be potentially be wrong about everything.
    That's true - who is innocent or guilty can be a matter of perspective.

    Caution: Long-Winded Diatribe of How Taoism Appeals to Me for Fi Reasoning (and how this relates to what you just said...).

    One of the teachings of Taoism is to look a singular event from varying viewpoints. For example, let's cut down a tree. This is bad for the tree. This is bad for the small animals living in the tree. This is bad for the environmentalist. However, this is good for the logger, the furniture maker and the paper factory...and perhaps even the neighbor who wanted that tree out of the way of his view. Taoism pretty much asks us to look at varying situations in this manner.

    That isn't to say that Taoism teaches no good or bad. To the contrary, there are principles of Taoism - oneness with nature and respect for nature; Wu-Wei ...or flowing like water, adapting and sometimes taking action by being inactive, listening to The Way; Love (or Charity or Compassion); Simplicity (or Moderation or Economy); and Modesty (or Humility or simply not putting one's self first and/or above others).

    Taoism strikes me as being rather ISFP - it could just be my own interpretation. Fi is in the love/compassion and not trying to overpower others with one's own belief system....actually Taoism is supposed to shared by being it, not by trying to "convert" others or "preach" like some other religions. Se is in the connection of spirituality strongly with nature, and also in the fact that Taoism doesn't teach asceticism...rather, it teaches us to accept that physical needs and pleasures are a part of life to be accepted and enjoyed, not rejected, but simply to be taken in Moderation (or Economy, which I think may be the "reasonable" Te underlying, inferior organization in Taoism though on the surface it simply "flows"); and the Ni is in the perspective shifting, of looking at situations as "good" or "bad" depending on perspective and context and consequence; how could this same issue be viewed differently or be handled differently? Could we simply go AROUND the tree instead of cutting it down? Et al.

    The stereotypical ISFP thing about Taoism outside of the functions is the emphasis on Wu-Wei. This is put humorously in both The Tao of Pooh and The Tao of Meow. Pooh is Wu-Wei by appreciating the simple pleasures in life, like friends and breakfast. He also represents Pu: Simplicity, Modesty ...the "uncarved block."

    It's put in an even wittier way in The Tao of Meow. This interpretation of the Tao suggests the world would be a much better place if people would simply act like cats and take more naps. If people would just go to sleep instead of always trying to "do good" then REAL goodness might be done, lol.

Similar Threads

  1. [INFP] Help me survive INFP Silent Treatment!
    By lithasblot in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 08-08-2015, 12:56 PM
  2. [INFP] Please help me understand an INFP
    By Saslou in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 02-07-2010, 04:38 PM
  3. [INFP] DARNED ESFPs and your caring! [Help me INFP]
    By Koocoomoo in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-10-2009, 02:40 AM
  4. Replies: 110
    Last Post: 05-03-2009, 12:49 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