Types and positions on morality

[Shadow Play]

I think T/F and J/P are the two preferences which contribute the most towards one's moral outlook. One could argue that S/N affects how open one is to new ideas, and by extension determines how conservative or progressive they are, but I'm not going to explore that further in this post.

Below are attempts to estimate what one's moral outlook might be based on their type.

FJ: "We are one and we all want the same things. What's good for us all is also good for each one of us. There's a right and wrong way to act towards our fellow human beings, although it seems too many are confused about right and wrong and need guidance."
FP: "It's each and every individual with their own needs who matters most. So many people forget this when they act like they know what's best for everyone else. Live and let live."
TJ: "It's the consequences of actions which determine their right and wrong, regardless of how we feel about them. We all need to be held accountable to each other for our actions in order to maintain social stability."
TP: "Morality is a construct decided upon by society to control others, and thus has little intrinsic value. It's the needs of the situation which matters most."

I regard these positions as a hypothetical general rule instead of being true for all FJs, FPs, TJs, and TPs. Disregarding the issue of middle preferences, it's entirely possible to agree with more than one of the above statements, or to disagree with all of them. This post serves mainly to start a discussion.

As for myself, I identify most strongly with the FP and TJ positions, and the least with the FJ position. Using the nu-MBTI of typology forums, I could argue for an FP or TJ typing on the basis of being on the Fi/Te axis, but I'd still show up as a TP for statistical purposes.

 

[Pionart]

I'll return to this thread later, but look into HEXACO's honest/humble dimension if you haven't already.

Feeling types tend to frame their decisions more in terms of morals, but I think honesty/humility is more relevant for whether some is, as it may be called, a "good" or "bad" person.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

I think this is pretty good, but I think it can be more simply stated that it's all determined by Je/Ji and which preference it encompasses (F or T).
Also, I think you should strike the "Why can't we accept others for who they are, warts and all, instead of casting judgement?" and instead take the Ti perspective and translate it to Fi. "Leave me alone and I'll leave you alone" is essentially synonymous to the personal outlook that is often ascribed to Fi doms: "Live and let live" (although there is probably a better, less cliche way of putting this).

I say this because Fi dom/aux users can be highly judgmental, but still tend to allow others to do and feel as they please, as long as it isn't harming another individual (or harming the other's self, if the Fi user cares about the other).

 

[Shadow Play]

I think this is pretty good, but I think it can be more simply stated that it's all determined by Je/Ji and which preference it encompasses (F or T).
Also, I think you should strike the "Why can't we accept others for who they are, warts and all, instead of casting judgement?" and instead take the Ti perspective and translate it to Fi. "Leave me alone and I'll leave you alone" is essentially synonymous to the personal outlook that is often ascribed to Fi doms: "Live and let live" (although there is probably a better, less cliche way of putting this).

I say this because Fi dom/aux users can be highly judgmental, but still tend to allow others to do and feel as they please, as long as it isn't harming another individual (or harming the other's self, if the Fi user cares about the other).

We're approaching things from different angles. Your suggestions are based on the notion that functions are the main event, and that letters are only a code to render those functions. I'm working with the letters first and foremost, with the functions only taken as an afterthought. My last paragraph was ruminating on how function descriptions don't consistently match up with their purported types when an INTP can identify with Fi/Te. Case in point: many self-identifying INs relate a lot to both Fi and Ti, even when they supposedly have neither of the two functions in their stacks - the official stacks for INTJ and INFJ are Ni-Te-Fe-Se and Ni-Fe-Te-Se, respectively.

So, I view FP and TP as Perceiving types instead of Ji types, hence why I'm emphasising a lack of judgement, and I don't merge the J types together and the P types together because I want to explore the separate influences of both T/F and J/P. Still, your suggestion about "live and let live" is good. I'll include that under FP, and also axe the last sentence for TP.

 

[Agent Washington]

I whipped up the difference between Morals, ethics and values because I thought the terms needed to be defined clearly first before I could address any of the other points. Don't get me wrong - I'm not here to talk about semantics, but just to make sure that we're on the right page.

Generally speaking, I think your original points tend to be well thought out, and I agree with them, more or less. The classification based on Judging functions is also pretty logical to me, and the foundations for morality is pretty much congruent with the definitions for the judging functions.

Ti and Fi do seem to be more live and let live - there's usually more living space for Ji than Je when it comes to being judgmental.

 

[Maou]

I agree with both the TP and TJ morality, mostly because when considering the application, certain things are more practical than others. Society cannot operate on an individual moral basis, so there must be some form of general approach. In this case, the order of law, which judges based on action.

 

[Jaguar]

Ah, yes. We definitely needed Jim Crowe law to show us the way in society. . .

"Git outa mah toilet room, black feller. Or ewz git hung and fried to a crisp with mah ciggyrette lighta."

I probably would have been shot at or called a "nigga luvah" were I an adult back then. Logic was nowhere in sight, just skin color and general stupidity.

FJ: "We are one and we all want the same things. What's good for us all is also good for each one of us. There's a right and wrong way to act towards our fellow human beings, although it seems too many are confused about right and wrong and need guidance."

What is that, a page from a cult handbook?

 

[Shadow Play]

Ah, yes. We definitely needed Jim Crowe law to show us the way in society. . .

"Git outa mah toilet room, black feller. Or ewz git hung and fried to a crisp with mah ciggyrette lighta."

I probably would have been shot at or called a "nigga luvah" were I an adult back then. Logic was nowhere in sight, just skin color and general stupidity.



What is that, a page from a cult handbook?

Oh look! Another flippant comment from Jaguar which contributes absolutely nothing to the discussion!

 

[Jaguar]

Oh look! Another flippant comment from Jaguar which contributes absolutely nothing to the discussion!

Then you missed the point of my post. Pity.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

We're approaching things from different angles. Your suggestions are based on the notion that functions are the main event, and that letters are only a code to render those functions. I'm working with the letters first and foremost, with the functions only taken as an afterthought. My last paragraph was ruminating on how function descriptions don't consistently match up with their purported types when an INTP can identify with Fi/Te. Case in point: many self-identifying INs relate a lot to both Fi and Ti, even when they supposedly have neither of the two functions in their stacks - the official stacks for INTJ and INFJ are Ni-Te-Fe-Se and Ni-Fe-Te-Se, respectively.

So, I view FP and TP as Perceiving types instead of Ji types, hence why I'm emphasising a lack of judgement, and I don't merge the J types together and the P types together because I want to explore the separate influences of both T/F and J/P. Still, your suggestion about "live and let live" is good. I'll include that under FP, and also axe the last sentence for TP.

I'm not sure what you are arguing, considering you organized the groups as follows:
- FJ
- TJ
- FP
- TP

Therefore, considering the way you are defining each group, you have organized them respectively based on their dominant deciding function, regardless of whether or not you are defining them as J or P.

What I mean is that your grouping and my grouping is the same:
FJ = Fe as dom deciding function
TJ = Te as dom deciding function
FP = Fi as dom deciding function
TP = Ti as dom deciding function

Additionally, I'm not sure what model you are using that claims that an INTJ uses Ni Te Fe Se. I'm far less interested in function systems than I am in the Enneagram.

With that said, I personally feel that the Objective Personality system offers the most advanced explanation of the functions and how they are used in pairs, and furthermore, how they can be observed and measured objectively in action.

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree, mostly because I don't have the interest or energy to debate further.

 

[Pionart]

Je: action
Ji: principles
Feeling: social, emotion, values
Thinking: systems, logic

Fe: it's about doing what's right. The actions you take, the way you convey yourself, especially around other people. Maybe a person needs caring, or a group needs shepherding, or rituals are needed to keep us focused on what's important.
Fi: it's about listening to our inner guidance system. Knowing which way to go as we move through life, that respects the inner experience of the individual. Knowing who to give our time to, and who to avoid.
Te: it's about getting things done, making the system work efficiently. That way we can make the most of the resources we have, and build and plan to achieve success. The facts of the matter should be taken into account.
Ti: it's about the way we frame information. Having things systemised correctly in our heads, so we can make the most rational decisions. We should remain detached, so as to see with clarity.

 

[Norexan]

First at all, what is morality? It is doing right action. Morality is based on idealism (Fi) is something right or wrong no matter for society thinks about it as good (Fe).
For example for me it is normal to walk naked if you want but using people without any reason it is morally wrong. Not just wrong but destructible for society.
I met certain people who complain me how this world is evil, how people are bad but they are so mindless they cannot realize that each action has reaction blah blah whining stuff..
So whatever you do now it will have reaction in people around you. You CANNOT use something what is not yours and expect to live in same world.
You cannot commit EVIL ACT (doing anything against the will of person) an EXPECT the world full of good people because PEOPLE LOOK AT YOU.
You have to have responsibility for people around you, teach them right action not action for just action because every idiot can steal things and be something.

 

[Sacrophagus]

Ah, yes. We definitely needed Jim Crowe law to show us the way in society. . .

"Git outa mah toilet room, black feller. Or ewz git hung and fried to a crisp with mah ciggyrette lighta."

I probably would have been shot at or called a "nigga luvah" were I an adult back then. Logic was nowhere in sight, just skin color and general stupidity.



What is that, a page from a cult handbook?

That's exactly why no one should identify as a person of color, a religious person, a person of status, or cling to any patriotic bullshit and all that hokum. They set themselves to treat everything according to those puny details on a pitiful surface level.


--------
On topic, I will entertain your definitions.

I don't give a shit who you are or what you do in your spare time as long as your actions do not create any obstructions in front of the current status quo. I welcome all attempts to make the subject of focus better, however. TJ definition works for me.

The TP assertion that suggests "The end justify the means" is definitely something I don't identify with. I have a strong sense of honor and pride. I have a personal way of doing things that I only question to make it better, provided it aligns with my code of honor.

FJ text seems a bit far-fetched to me. Were you implying that FJ seeks symbiosis and cohesion? If so, no thanks. FJs have a lot of work to do then, and I rather they stop sacrificing themselves and their needs for the sake of humanity.
I do think that FJs think deeper than that and see higher purposes for their actions.

FP way of thinking accepts all differences as long as their values are not endangered. Most of them react when those values are not respected or when they're not understood.

I don't give a shit if someone understands or not. In fact, I never mention my values in context waiting for the others to understand or accept them. My values are mine. I really don't care if someone lives by them or not. Sharing the same values also doesn't make us friends.



Regarding your divisions, I echo Peter's claim overall.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

I say this because Fi dom/aux users can be highly judgmental, but still tend to allow others to do and feel as they please, as long as it isn't harming another individual (or harming the other's self, if the Fi user cares about the other).

Can you (or anyone) give an example of how an FJ might not allow others to do as they please even though it's in no way harmful to other individuals?

 

[Peter Deadpan]

Can you (or anyone) give an example of how an FJ might not allow others to do as they please even though it's in no way harmful to other individuals?

What I was trying to say is that FJs are sometimes (moreso than other types) very communicative of how they feel the social atmosphere should function, expecting others to adhere to certain communal standards of behavior.

 

[Pionart]

What I was trying to say is that FJs are sometimes (moreso than other types) very communicative of how they feel the social atmosphere should function, expecting others to adhere to certain communal standards of behavior.

I can vouch for this in my own case. I'm often saying "please don't do that", often without the "please",
however
I know ESFPs do a similar thing, and I expect NFPs would too if they were more comfortable with confrontation.

(though it's done in different ways, different motives etc. so I'll give it more thought)

 

[Peter Deadpan]

I can vouch for this in my own case. I'm often saying "please don't do that", often without the "please",
however
I know ESFPs do a similar thing, and I expect NFPs would too if they were more comfortable with confrontation.

(though it's done in different ways, different motives etc. so I'll give it more thought)

That's a fair assessment.

I think it's kind of funny when IFPs snap though, but in the sense that the intensity and stubbornness can be second to none.

 

[Pionart]

That's a fair assessment.

I think it's kind of funny when IFPs snap though, but in the sense that the intensity and stubbornness can be second to none.

I thought about it, and I think the idea of trying to change the behaviour of another indicates extroverted judgement, and the term "social atmosphere" implies Feeling, so it's Fe, you're right.

However (another however ) the notion of expecting something is more passive and Fi focused. FPs can expect to be treated a certain way (and expect others to be treated a certain way), but this is shown through their emotional reactions, and perhaps being demanding with Te, rather than the persuasion tactics that an FJ would employ.

 

[Vendrah]

I think T/F and J/P are the two preferences which contribute the most towards one's moral outlook. One could argue that S/N affects how open one is to new ideas, and by extension determines how conservative or progressive they are, but I'm not going to explore that further in this post.

Below are attempts to estimate what one's moral outlook might be based on their type.

FJ: "We are one and we all want the same things. What's good for us all is also good for each one of us. There's a right and wrong way to act towards our fellow human beings, although it seems too many are confused about right and wrong and need guidance."
FP: "It's each and every individual with their own needs who matters most. So many people forget this when they act like they know what's best for everyone else. Live and let live."
TJ: "It's the consequences of actions which determine their right and wrong, regardless of how we feel about them. We all need to be held accountable to each other for our actions in order to maintain social stability."
TP: "Morality is a construct decided upon by society to control others, and thus has little intrinsic value. It's the needs of the situation which matters most."

I regard these positions as a hypothetical general rule instead of being true for all FJs, FPs, TJs, and TPs. Disregarding the issue of middle preferences, it's entirely possible to agree with more than one of the above statements, or to disagree with all of them. This post serves mainly to start a discussion.

As for myself, I identify most strongly with the FP and TJ positions, and the least with the FJ position. Using the nu-MBTI of typology forums, I could argue for an FP or TJ typing on the basis of being on the Fi/Te axis, but I'd still show up as a TP for statistical purposes.

I think that TPs, at least for INTP, means something like "Its a set of consistent principles that, applied in a logical framework, sets what should and what should not be done".

Also, I think that I could actually write something for NT->"Its a construct of logical rules that comes from an inteligent analysis to give rational sense in order to achieve progress in the given enviroment". I could write for SJ either, for NF maybe but I couldnt come with anything for SP.

But my main point here is to show that we could actually create many combinations for morality although I wonder which ones would be pretty fake and shallow on the subject, or if it is quite limited. I know that TJ justice is usually measured by results (consequences of action), but that judging only works if the system evaluated is very close to a meritocracy system because it always says that it is either your fault (when things goes downhill) or your merit (when it works). However, a meritocrathic system is more an exception than a rule in the real world (in terms of political debate there is not even a single one system that it is truly merithocratic). Giving a short resume to a very long discussion, meritocrathic systems needs to follow at least all four of these points:
1) No or minimized heritages.
2) Equal opportunities for every person. In political terms, the motto is equal opportunities for every children, which only works if there is a very good free education and health-care system.
3) A system that can have some kind of "armory" or a defense against randomness. The results to be evaluated must be purely from merit and the random factor/distortions must be either minimal or zero.
4) There is controversy on this, but it is very important to state that "input" must equal "output". Most, if not all, merithocrats agrees that no one can produce hundreds or thousands more than the average, so, all these super or ultra rich lacks merit at least partially. This is an important part that nobody, as far as I know, could tackle it and create a system from a completely objective point of view.

Its quite funny to note that there is not a single country in the world, as far as I know, which passes in all of these four at the same time, however most games do. A regular game does provide equal opportunity to every players if anti-cheat is well stablished once they bought the game and the console (or a good PC). It does not have heritages, you dont inherit items from your parents. If you evaluate the average of results in long terms, the downs and ups from randomness tends to be equal and cancel each other(supposing that the further results are mostly or completely independent from the present results). And most developeres wont let the best players to produce hundreds or thousand times the average players at the same time frame (or handle hundreds or thousands of enemies in a row or without dying, they got bots for that), because if they do most of the player base will simply quit and not buy the game again.

In most societies I believe (I live in Brazil so I will speak in brazillian society, although USA and others shouldnt change much), things arent completely meritocrathic. It is usually a middle point between meritocracy and anti-meritocracy (anti-meritocracy is the obedience of some of these 4 points in reversion - the output must be random or the result must be simply from heritage). In regular societies, the heritage is usually unlimited. There are not equal opportunity for every child. The results are subject to external crisis, floating on marketplace demands and a lot of random stuff. There are people winning hundreds or thousands times more than average per year/month.

I did all this meritocracy tour just to state that TJs "justice" and "fairness" will only be truly fair if all these points I made are met (and maybe you will need even more points), which is more an exception than the rule. I can point many fails: A boss that fires a worker that is not showing up because he/she is sick; A boss that fires a worker due to market low demand; Crisis that bankrupt entrepreneurs; Rich people who deserve to have their life and shows off their superiority on poor people when that does come from pure heritage or by simply a series of fortunate events that made them fortunate (or a combination of both); And I could go further and further. Some of these "justices" can be very cruel from the FJs, FPs and ethical standpoint, and pretty unlogical for INTP/TP (the whole judging while there are inconsistency in the judging principles turns it against logic). Cases like when TJ "justice" says that poor people suffering from hunger deserves it (when most of them just had a series of unfortunate events that, guess what, made them unfortunate). I could go on with more examples. In the end, TJ "justice" is applied when it shouldnt be, creating more unfairness than fairness. To be honest, I wonder if some people who uses this TJ justice (actually, more people than just TJs does, and some TJ can become aware of this flaw and change, I believe) actually do care about it being unfair or only cares if it does seem or it is acceptable as fair despite being not.

And I kind of refuted TJ justice in a INTP way (look for principles and look for inconsistency).

 

[Peter Deadpan]

I think that TPs, at least for INTP, means something like "Its a set of consistent principles that, applied in a logical framework, sets what should and what should not be done".

Also, I think that I could actually write something for NT->"Its a construct of logical rules that comes from an inteligent analysis to give rational sense in order to achieve progress in the given enviroment". I could write for SJ either, for NF maybe but I couldnt come with anything for SP.

But my main point here is to show that we could actually create many combinations for morality although I wonder which ones would be pretty fake and shallow on the subject, or if it is quite limited. I know that TJ justice is usually measured by results (consequences of action), but that judging only works if the system evaluated is very close to a meritocracy system because it always says that it is either your fault (when things goes downhill) or your merit (when it works). However, a meritocrathic system is more an exception than a rule in the real world (in terms of political debate there is not even a single one system that it is truly merithocratic). Giving a short resume to a very long discussion, meritocrathic systems needs to follow at least all four of these points:
1) No or minimized heritages.
2) Equal opportunities for every person. In political terms, the motto is equal opportunities for every children, which only works if there is a very good free education and health-care system.
3) A system that can have some kind of "armory" or a defense against randomness. The results to be evaluated must be purely from merit and the random factor/distortions must be either minimal or zero.
4) There is controversy on this, but it is very important to state that "input" must equal "output". Most, if not all, merithocrats agrees that no one can produce hundreds or thousands more than the average, so, all these super or ultra rich lacks merit at least partially. This is an important part that nobody, as far as I know, could tackle it and create a system from a completely objective point of view.

Its quite funny to note that there is not a single country in the world, as far as I know, which passes in all of these four at the same time, however most games do. A regular game does provide equal opportunity to every players if anti-cheat is well stablished once they bought the game and the console (or a good PC). It does not have heritages, you dont inherit items from your parents. If you evaluate the average of results in long terms, the downs and ups from randomness tends to be equal and cancel each other(supposing that the further results are mostly or completely independent from the present results). And most developeres wont let the best players to produce hundreds or thousand times the average players at the same time frame (or handle hundreds or thousands of enemies in a row or without dying, they got bots for that), because if they do most of the player base will simply quit and not buy the game again.

In most societies I believe (I live in Brazil so I will speak in brazillian society, although USA and others shouldnt change much), things arent completely meritocrathic. It is usually a middle point between meritocracy and anti-meritocracy (anti-meritocracy is the obedience of some of these 4 points in reversion - the output must be random or the result must be simply from heritage). In regular societies, the heritage is usually unlimited. There are not equal opportunity for every child. The results are subject to external crisis, floating on marketplace demands and a lot of random stuff. There are people winning hundreds or thousands times more than average per year/month.

I did all this meritocracy tour just to state that TJs "justice" and "fairness" will only be truly fair if all these points I made are met (and maybe you will need even more points), which is more an exception than the rule. I can point many fails: A boss that fires a worker that is not showing up because he/she is sick; A boss that fires a worker due to market low demand; Crisis that bankrupt entrepreneurs; Rich people who deserve to have their life and shows off their superiority on poor people when that does come from pure heritage or by simply a series of fortunate events that made them fortunate (or a combination of both); And I could go further and further. Some of these "justices" can be very cruel from the FJs, FPs and ethical standpoint, and pretty unlogical for INTP/TP (the whole judging while there are inconsistency in the judging principles turns it against logic). Cases like when TJ "justice" says that poor people suffering from hunger deserves it (when most of them just had a series of unfortunate events that, guess what, made them unfortunate). I could go on with more examples. In the end, TJ "justice" is applied when it shouldnt be, creating more unfairness than fairness. To be honest, I wonder if some people who uses this TJ justice (actually, more people than just TJs does, and some TJ can become aware of this flaw and change, I believe) actually do care about it being unfair or only cares if it does seem or it is acceptable as fair despite being not.

And I kind of refuted TJ justice in a INTP way (look for principles and look for inconsistency).

This is a very ST post for an xNFP.