[INFP] INFP's - Help me clarify something?

[Viridian]

Question: if you are conflicted or confused or ambiguous about what is right and wrong, does that make you a nihilist? If so, does that mean Marm's gonna give me a wedgie?

 

[OrangeAppled]

I can't believe the hilariously misguided hate moral skepticism is receiving. INFPs, for a rigorous defense of moral skepticism, read J.L. Mackie's Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong.

Project much? There's no hate in here. I took an ethics class in college too, thanks.

I can understand positing morality as a human construction, but when you start saying it's an inherent element of the universe... then we've got problems on our hands.

That's how you feel. I can assure you many would feel quite the opposite: that there are problems on our hands when you start saying there is no inherent element of morality in the universe.

In our thousands of years of human experience, how come we STILL don't know what gravity is yet we use it to explain so much? I think morality is in a similar position... it's deeply ingrained in our everyday judgments and our overall outlook of life, yet we don't really understand it.

The difference here is that gravity is undoubtedly a physical construct and not a human one, one that exists whether we care or not.

We know gravity exists, even if we don't know what it is. We see & feel the effects of it.
All your argument does here is support that we can determine that morality (and lack of it) exists in a similar way.
We don't know that morality is undoubtedly a human construct or not a human construct either. Do the effects of morality (or lack of) only exist if you "care"?

 

[Santosha]

Okay, I'm gonna try to shake this up a little, in a good way. If this turns into a "NO U" thread.. I'm going to be truly dissapointed, as I know that everyone thats commented so far is capeable of articulating ideas without personal attacks. Immediately jumping to what kinds of people subsribe to these ideas is useless, if we don't fully comprehend the ideas first. This is what I'm asking help with.. people who have a really good grasp on what moral nihilism and objective truth entails, and IF they think it holds some value, how do they go about framing their personal morals.

Lets stick to the concept at hand for now. Moral nihilism and objective truth. What does this really mean?

Objective (in that its applied to everyone) and moral truth (in that it must provide some motivational force).

One of the more univeral morals.. to not kill. Does this apply to everyone? What about sociopaths, war leaders, or killing in defense? If it is not okay to kill a human, what about an animal? What about any sentient being? What about an ant that you accidentally step on. How do we decide what is valueable and what isn't? Is it a moral objective truth if we say there are exceptions to it?

 

[Silveresque]

I'm an INxP that is a moral nihilist/moral skeptic. I am what you would call a first-order moral skeptic; I don't believe that there is such a thing as a "good" or "bad" action because I don't think we have adequate knowledge of what good or bad means, right or wrong means, etc. Meta-ethically speaking, good or bad might mean something, but we don't know what they mean if they do. Being a moral nihilist or moral skeptic doesn't mean you treat people inhumanely or unfairly. After all, we have no problem telling a cruel action from a kind one, a just one from an unjust one, etc.

I can't believe the hilariously misguided hate moral skepticism is receiving. INFPs, for a rigorous defense of moral skepticism, read J.L. Mackie's Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong. Also, let's just avoid using the term nihilist as a world view. It's fucking meaningless. If everything was really meaningless, then the individual asserting that would be incapable of or would refrain from placing value on people, things, goals, moments, etc. in their life. Psychology tells us this isn't the case when we're dealing with normal people.

I can understand positing morality as a human construction, but when you start saying it's an inherent element of the universe... then we've got problems on our hands.

+1

I'm not sure if I'm welcome here, being an INTP, but I want to clarify that moral nihilism is not the same thing as being amoral. All moral nihilism is really saying is that what we call morality is the same as personal values or opinion, rather than some absolute objective truth. It's not saying that you shouldn't be moral because of that. It simply means you recognize that when you say something is right or wrong, you're stating your own personal belief/opinion.

And by the way, [MENTION=6877]Marmie Dearest[/MENTION], if you want to punch me or call me a coward for having my own set of personal values that I will follow no matter what, while at the same time accepting that all morality is relative and subjective, go ahead. I am a moral skeptic. I can't say I know what is "right" or "wrong", and I can't say that "right" and "wrong" can ever be known, or that they even exist. But I still strive to be a good person, despite all the not knowing, because I choose to be, not because it is "right", but because I because I value it.

 

[Hazashin]

And by the way, [MENTION=6877]Marmie Dearest[/MENTION], if you want to punch me or call me a coward for having my own set of personal values that I will follow no matter what, while at the same time accepting that all morality is relative and subjective, go ahead. I am a moral skeptic. I can't say I know what is "right" or "wrong", and I can't say that "right" and "wrong" can ever be known, or that they even exist. But I still strive to be a good person, despite all the not knowing, because I choose to be, not because it is "right", but because I because I value it.

Wait, is that a Ti thing? 'Cause I feel the same way. O_O

 

[Silveresque]

Wait, is that a Ti thing? 'Cause I feel the same way. O_O

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.

 

[Hazashin]

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.

Wait, I'm a little confused. Fi users believe in what such a thing? Objective truth? I thought you were arguing for that against them.

I was saying I agreed with what you had said.

 

[Santosha]

Yes yes! Thank you [MENTION=14216]RevlisZero[/MENTION] and [MENTION=13228]NegativeZero[/MENTION]!

This was my point. This was exactly my point. And now I'm not going to get into extremely basic discussion on how even something as abhorent as killing, is infact, STILL really a personal value/opinion.

[MENTION=13609]Hazashin[/MENTION], I don't think it's Ti.. but I think that Ti users might be more likely to understand the distinction in definitions and realize you CAN believe that a moral objective truth doesn't exist or can never be known, yet still apply values in your own personal life.

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?

 

[Hazashin]

/brain fried

 

[Silveresque]

Wait, I'm a little confused. Fi users believe in what such a thing? Objective truth? I thought you were arguing for that against them.

I was saying I agreed with what you had said.

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.

 

[Hazashin]

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.

 

[chickpea]

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.

 

[Silveresque]

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.

 

[erm]

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.

 

[Silveresque]

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.

 

[Santosha]

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

 

[Thalassa]

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?

 

[Thalassa]

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.

 

[chickpea]

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.

 

[Thalassa]

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.