• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

[MBTI General] Morality in NTs

FDG

pathwise dependent
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
5,903
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
7w8
I use what socio-economic power I have to discriminate against people who go against the grain of my morals and aid those that generally promote them or live by them.

You'd make a good pope.

Btw, are you real or just a troll?
 

Shaunward

New member
Joined
Jan 24, 2010
Messages
297
You'd make a good pope.

Btw, are you real or just a troll?

I make statements I believe to be true. I've noticed subconsciously that I sometimes word things in a way that while true, generate a response. So while I do believe what I say, I choose a way that lets me learn from others. I don't mean to upset people, just get them to reveal a bit more about themselves.

Does this response sufficiently answer your question?
 

FDG

pathwise dependent
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
5,903
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
7w8
Yeah, you're a troll. Thank you.
 

Moiety

New member
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
5,996
MBTI Type
ISFJ
In my opinion, to the extent that (stereotypical) NF morality differs from NT morality, one is rooted in feelings while the other is predicated upon reason. For example, if there was a runaway trolley that was going to kill five people and the only way to avert that catastrophe would be to push an obese man in front of the trolley (thereby stopping it but killing him), an NT would be more likely to make the correct decision. On the other hand, when it comes to dealing with everyday emotional situations, NFs are more adept than NTs.

When one thinks of morally virtuous people, one might think of Mother Teresa, who exemplifies compassionate, NF-based morality. On the other hand, Bill Gates, as a philanthropist, used NT-based logic to determine how to best help people. And, of course, he did far more good than a hundred Mother Teresas could have done -- yet he is seldom seen as a moral paragon. The problem isn't that NTs aren't moral, but that our concept of morality is founded upon emotion rather than reason.

No offense, but I don't think you know what you are talking about.

I would argue you can't have morality solely based on reason alone OR feelings alone. Reason never points to anything moral because it needs some sort of emotion to discriminate on how/when/where to that same reason.

And any self-respecting NF will always introduce some degree of logical coherence to their own morality.
 

Shaunward

New member
Joined
Jan 24, 2010
Messages
297
Yeah, you're a troll. Thank you.

Depends on your definition. To me, a troll is somebody that aims, first and foremost, to annoy and provoke. The actions a troll may include condescending with terms as "cute", making passive-aggressive anticomplements, displaying general hostility toward posters, et cetera. I assure you, such is not my aim.
 

FDG

pathwise dependent
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
5,903
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
7w8
Depends on your definition. To me, a troll is somebody that aims, first and foremost, to annoy and provoke. The actions a troll may include condescending with terms as "cute", making passive-aggressive anticomplements, displaying general hostility toward posters, et cetera. I assure you, such is not my aim.

Ok...an elegant, high-class troll :D:newwink:
 

Moiety

New member
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
5,996
MBTI Type
ISFJ
FDG, there's a difference between a troll and a megalomaniac ENTJ. You of all people should know.(being an ENTJ yourself, I mean)
 

Begoner

New member
Joined
Sep 6, 2009
Messages
11
MBTI Type
ISTP
Enneagram
5w4
I would argue you can't have morality solely based on reason alone OR feelings alone. Reason never points to anything moral because it needs some sort of emotion to discriminate on how/when/where to that same reason.

I would take the opposite position: only reason can illuminate morality. Emotion enters the equation insofar as our brains are hard-wired to have particular emotional reactions to acts which are evolutionarily detrimental to the community. For example, when we see someone being beaten up, our instinct might tell us to intervene, as morality would dictate. On the other hand, we can often be led astray by such feelings -- many people think gay sex is immoral, even though it obviously isn't, because of how they personally feel about it (i.e., it's gross so it must be wrong). And people are much more likely to donate to local charities (i.e., help their community) than give money where it is needed the most (to alleviate crippling poverty in Africa, perhaps). In the trolley example I cited, 80% of people selected the immoral answer -- not due to ethical reasoning, but because of a visceral, emotional response against murder.

Certainly, morality cannot exist among beings completely devoid of emotion and feeling -- since such beings cannot be wronged, there can be no wrong. However, moral truth can only be determined by taking emotion rationally into account. In general, reasoning in this manner comes more naturally to NTs than NFs.
 

Moiety

New member
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
5,996
MBTI Type
ISFJ
I would take the opposite position: only reason can illuminate morality.

I wouldn't say it is opposite. I agree with that. I would add that only morality can illuminate reason, though. Reason needs a purpose or goal to be used in the first place.

Emotion enters the equation insofar as our brains are hard-wired to have particular emotional reactions to acts which are evolutionarily detrimental to the community.

Or the individual. And emotion is not just opposing in nature. You can see emotional reactions to acts which are evolutionarily benign to the community (or individual) also.

And the scope can vary. Short-term, long-term, humans as a race, humans as individuals.


For example, when we see someone being beaten up, our instinct might tell us to intervene, as morality would dictate

As feelings would dictate. Morality is not just the conduct influenced by the whole of your feelings. If that were the case no one would ever be polite in any way to someone they never met before, but who reeks of "bad news". It is always tempered by some sort of reasoning, however crude and simple.


Certainly, morality cannot exist among beings completely devoid of emotion and feeling -- since such beings cannot be wronged, there can be no wrong. However, moral truth can only be determined by taking emotion rationally into account.


Or reason emotionally into account. (You say one must filter feelings in a rational way. I agree, but I would add you need to filter reason in a emotional way too.) If one even BELIEVES in an "moral truth" as you put, in which I, an NF, personally don't. 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.

On the other hand, we can often be led astray by such feelings -- many people think gay sex is immoral, even though it obviously isn't, because of how they personally feel about it (i.e., it's gross so it must be wrong). And people are much more likely to donate to local charities (i.e., help their community) than give money where it is needed the most (to alleviate crippling poverty in Africa, perhaps). In the trolley example I cited, 80% of people selected the immoral answer -- not due to ethical reasoning, but because of a visceral, emotional response against murder.

In general, reasoning in this manner comes more naturally to NTs than NFs.


Pure logic as defined in Ti and Te descriptions, sure. But I think you might have to distinguish between SFs (or even SPs and SJs) and NF when it comes to morality. Our N ensures we are usually more interested and prone to reading between the lines and considering the implications. An NF is not as interested in "petty charity" as you might think. We are called idealists for a reason.




PS : Just to clarify (I typ0 left and right) - where I wrote "Reason never points to anything moral because it needs some sort of emotion to discriminate on how/when/where to that same reason." it should read "Reason never points to anything moral because it needs some sort of emotion to discriminate on how/when/where to use that same reason.
 
G

garbage

Guest
Certainly, morality cannot exist among beings completely devoid of emotion and feeling -- since such beings cannot be wronged, there can be no wrong. However, moral truth can only be determined by taking emotion rationally into account. In general, reasoning in this manner comes more naturally to NTs than NFs.

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.
 

Begoner

New member
Joined
Sep 6, 2009
Messages
11
MBTI Type
ISTP
Enneagram
5w4
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.
 

Begoner

New member
Joined
Sep 6, 2009
Messages
11
MBTI Type
ISTP
Enneagram
5w4
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.
 

Moiety

New member
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
5,996
MBTI Type
ISFJ
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.

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.


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 said:
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).
 

wildcat

New member
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
3,622
MBTI Type
INTP
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 :D.

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 :D )
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.
 

nanook

a scream in a vortex
Joined
Jul 22, 2007
Messages
1,361
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)
 

Eldanen

Arcesso pulli gingerios!
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
697
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
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.
 

wildcat

New member
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
3,622
MBTI Type
INTP
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.
 
Top