I have no problem listening to the point of view and feelings of someone who I feel to be engaged in evil, it is important to understanding why they do what they do. I have no problem seeing them as evil yet at the same time putting myself into their shoes as much as my available information on them allows me. It is actually part of deciding if I truly believe their actions to be evil. The only way to truly understand evil is to observe it and walk along side it and listen to what it says about itself.
Compromise is always desirible but not at the cost of truth. There really is such a thing as true and untrue, no matter whose feelings it hurts. Though lack of harmony is painful and unsettling, it is not always avoidable.
All of this shows that you're using Thinking to give structure to Fi. As cafe said, those who havent learned to reason objectively think those who disagree with them to be evil. That is indeed the case. Fi without objective judgment would be embroiled in Feelings to the extent where it is too difficult to seperate oneself from the feelings of reprobation (for the one judged to be evil) to analyze their merits and demerits. We tend to have less empathy for those who upset us in any way, as they exude less positive emotional affectivity. We obviously have little positive emotion for those we think evil or hurtful, as terms 'evil' and 'hurtful' seem to presuppose by definition. That means we'd have little empathy for them. If empathy is our only way to understand people (pure Fi), we will not easily understand their standpoint.
However, when Te interjects, it shall accomplish two things. Will seperate us from the negative passions, and therefore remove us from the feelings of extreme disgust with those we deem evil. Because those Feelings were lessened (they were the reason empathy was not possible in the first place), it is no longer an issue. Secondly, Te will be used to understand people through analysis rather than empathy. This shall be possible because Fi already holds a vivid interest in others and has likely capacited us to collect the sufficient information for analysis.
In short, Fis without a well developed Te tend not to understand people they revile well. And they indeed do too easily think those who criticize them evil as they feel threatened easily without the sufficient Te support. Their Te is black and white at that point and unconscious most of the time. Te unconsciously interprets the negative emotions Fi received from others criticizing them as 'they hate you' and unconsciously goes on to hate them.
This of course, they would never admit, hatred is far too low of a passion for the magnanimous Fi to submit to. Since they lack intellectual integrity, they are not in the position to avoid self-deception.
That, or have a defined moral set that considers and respects the individual as a dynamic human being, one who's ultimately governed by the exact same natural laws, who's inclined by similar inherent human instincts and yet whose dynamic nature is expressed by/as his behavioral responses to the myriad environmental circumstances he happened to be exposed to.:
So, what all this means is, we are all similar, as we are all humans and we all live in the same world. We all should feel the same way about things, so suffice it to say we can figure out an appropriate way for all to emote and act under all circumstances.
This kind of thinking is dangerous. This is exactly what gave rise to Fe Phariseenism in the first place. Here is how.
Obviously we all generate feelings from within. We always have until the time we had etiquette. Yet at one point, someone assumed everyone should feel like they do, as their empathy naturally put them in the shoes of the other person, they imagined that the other person is just like them. We naturally feel like other people are just like us when we try to empathize with them. Yet this judgment seems to be mistaken at the core.
Our feelings are shaped first of all by our genes and our environment. For example, there is nothing objective about the taste of sweetness in a sugar, or 'salty' in a salt. Monkeys and dogs would likely derive a slightly, if not very different taste from those foods. We taste it that way because of our biological make up.
Secondly, there is the psychological factor. Our values are often influenced by our environment. For example, if we have grown up in a village that is constantly run over by enemy tribes, we will come to have a feeling of revulsion at the sound of a bell ringing, urging us all to garrison inside fortified buildings. We will also come to develop values that are most fitting for survival in such an environment. This will have a profound implication on how we judge all things from the person-centered perspective.
It is certainly the poetic dream of every Fi that we all be brothers and sisters like in the 'kingdom of God', that we could love all. That we all can relate because we are similar somehow. That is not at all the case. First of all we tend to have a different genetic make up from most people. As this shows that most people have different talents and tend to have different natural emotional reaction to most things than others. And of course, most of us have grown up in different environments in comparison to most people of the world. We are bound to have a wholly different set of values to judge the world by.
For this reason, it is not possible to say that we can hold all people to the same emotional standard.
The idea that we can hold people to the same emotional standard has its seat in philosophy of law under the name of 'natural law theory'. Or that law is a manifestation of the true laws of human nature.
The only prominent rival theory is legal positivism, which I recommend. Laws, or stipulations of human conduct should have nothing to do with morality. Or with what we feel is truly right or wrong. Law is concerned with establishing an orderly society.
Why do we need an orderly society? It is certainly not the case that we must abandon natural law theory altogether, or keep our value judgments complete out of the equation. We are similar with all people to some degree after all. We obviously know that we all want to be happy. Yet we also know that on a deeper level, we are different from others. If we try to come up with an objective standard for what makes people happy, we will be imposing sanctions on them that do not conduce to their happiness. As what works for us, often does not work for them.
What we need to do is to establish an environment (a peaceful environment) where all people are free to enjoy their solitary freedom. Where they can decide for themselves what makes them happy. Thus, we justify the axiom that all laws are means to the end of bringing about order by virtue of the natural law maxim that we all want to be happy, and we need to seek out happiness on our own. The only way we can do this is if we have an orderly society where others do not interfere with us on our pursuit of happiness. Can law in itself be an interference? Yes, that is why it needs to be only rigid enough to provide a peaceful environment, anything further is unnecessary tyranny. However, the few sanctions it imposes are worth accepting because in the end there shall be less sanctions than we would have had to deal with in the event of us being interfered with by the value judgments others impose on us.
Are we imposing a value judgment on many people that they should seek happiness on their own? Indeed, as most people do want to be told how to Feel and what to Think. We have to impose this one on them in order to cut down the number of impositions.
So, what is morality? Ultimately morality is the pursuit of happiness. It is certainly absurd to maintain otherwise. There would be no reason to say there is anything wrong with murder and rape if it wasnt for the emotional reaction it evokes in us. A right choice is one that conduces to my long term happiness, a wrong one is one that does not. Thinking that morality applies to all people is a result of a mistaken notion that all people are like us.
One could argue that all good people should deem murder wrong. That is indeed the case. Perhaps such objective judgments could be applied to all people. We could have a model for a perfect human being, a model we must follow in order to be happy. I do buy this indeed. Yet, in order to implement this, we would have to change a lot of people, which is close to impossible.
Many cannot help but get off at the idea of raping little boys, genocide or murder. This is a result in part of their genetical predisposition, and more so their environment. If we could get such people on track of the 'perfect human being' model, they indeed would be the happiest. However, this tends not to be an option. In their case it may be 'right' or the most conducive to their happiness to kill and commit pederastry, I'd only proscribe such activities because this interferes with others. (Disturbs orderly society). Not because of a value judgment that what they do is wrong.
However, is it right for such people to rape and kill? Perhaps, they may be so disturbed that the only way they could feel good is by getting that momentary pleasure of watching others suffer and all else that is entailed by such an act. The only way out of this is the long and hard battle to attain mental health in order to avoid such thinking. This is one they are not in the position to fight.
In summary, is moral Universalism true? From the standpoint of pure ethic, yes it is. As we could easily envision a model of a perfect human being, how he should feel, and what conduces to his happiness. Or what kind of a human being is most adept at attaining happiness. We could chart out a path for all people to get closer to being this model, and then pursuing happiness.
We should not however, implement this path as it is too high of a mountain to climb for most people. From the standpoint practical ethics, Moral Relativism is to be decidedly preferred. This isnt a matter of what is true, but a matter of what is useful. What theory we should use to concoct a standard of human behavior in our society.
Yeah, but a person with a strong self-concept coupled with a strong sense of integrity who happens to view himself as an honest person, after having committed a lie, will accept that he committed an act that went against his personal values, and acknowledging this fact, he will feel appropriately guilty for it, and by analyzing why he acted in such a way, understand why he resorted to doing it, i.e. acknowledge his area of potential weakness while still maintaining that he is an honest person, fallible though he may be.
:
Cognitive dissonance is a problem for all people not adept at objective reasoning. This is the case because they always need to feel good about themselves. Without the proper use of Thinking they can hardly tolerate any notion negative about themselves. Self-deception is more common among Fis than Fes. Because they have less natural access to the Thinking faculty. Kierkegaard and Roussaeu are striking examples of how ludicrous this can get. However, if we compare Fi and Fe (both with well developed Thinking), Fi will have an edge at concocting firm moral values and staying true to them because Fi tends to yield deeper insight into the nature of emotion which is necessary in order to tackle questions of morality. As for Fe being easily influenced by the whims of others, cultivation of Thinking shall rectify the issue. This will not only place them in the position where their feelings do not mirror that of others, but also will seperate them from all feelings to a great degree.
No, it does not. Moral universalism is true, though not applicable. We should treat all people with respect and give them their autonomy, but give empathy only to our friends, or those who share our values. (By give empathy I do not mean merely to feel for them, but attempt to assist them in accordance to our personal values). We are rendering the strangers a diss-service by trying to empathize with them (or do what we think is best for them) because in effect we are forcing our values onto them.
Fi in itself has difficulty applying their value judgments (especially in the case of IFPs) to the external world, just like Ti applying ideas to the external world. Such is the malady of every introvert. The reason Fi has this problem is because whilst their values and feelings make perfect sense to those who are of a similar ethical framework as they are themselves, but to those who are not, seem wholly incomprehensible. Fi also tends to have little ambition to apply empathy, as this requires getting out of one's head to a great degree which is a pain for every introvert. It is primarily concerned, as every introverted function with creating a sound internal environment. Application to the external world tends to play a small role in this endeavor.
EFPs with a focus on the external world may be sorely tempted to apply their value judgments to the external world, and due to their superb communication skills (that IFPs tend to lack) they also have the ability to do so. I really think they ought not to. No matter how sincere they may be, knowingly or not, they are attempting a pygmalion project in effect of their endeavor. As the only way to concoct an objective ethical standard is by ensuring that all people really are similar.
So, this is the premise that we now have grounds for a thorough and irrevocable refutation.
That, or have a defined moral set that considers and respects the individual as a dynamic human being, one who's ultimately governed by the exact same natural laws, who's inclined by similar inherent human instincts and yet whose dynamic nature is expressed by/as his behavioral responses to the myriad environmental circumstances he happened to be exposed to.:
This leads to the Fe 'ought to feel' cant. 'We are all one.'
Examples of the above regime.
Plato's State.
‘The strongest principle is that everybody, whether they are male or female, should have a leader. Likewise, no one should get into the habit of doing anything at all on his own initiative-either in earnest or in jest. Both in war and during time of peace, he should respect his leader and follow him faithfully. He should look up to his leader and follow his guidance in even the smallest matters. For example, he should get up, move around, wash, and have his meals.. only at such times as he has been ordered to do so. In other words, he should get into the habit, by a long process of training of never dreaming of acting independently, and thus becoming utterly incapable of such action. In this way the life of all is spent in total community. There is no law, and there never will be one, which is above this. It is the most effective way of achieving salvation and victory in war. And in peacetime, and from earliest childhood, this should remain the highest law- the need to rule others and be ruled by others. All trace of independence or anarchistic spirit must be completely eradicated from the life of all men, and even the wild beasts which are kept by these men.”
John Calvin's Geneva. (Actual historical event)
Marx's Communism.
Mussolini's fascism.
The Taliban.
As we see this obviously leads to tyranny of values. Though in a smaller community, such as many villages in the East, it works out fine as people naturally share all values, noone is forced to convert.
---------------------------------------------------------------
What to make of all of this?
Fi's generally do not force their values onto others as things that they disagree with tend to be outside of their focus, as their focus tends to be very narrow. Yet Fes who share their convictions will crusade their values onto the rest of the world.
Sooner or later Fi, especially an EFP will be forced to examine (F-person centered fashion) things that tend to be outside of their focus. They likely will be highly disturbed at what they see. This is because they think other people are just like them. With the same capabilities for feeling all that is human and seeking the true good. That is simply false, and it is important to know this to avoid the angst of a frustrated idealist. (We certainly wouldnt be getting as mad at the aligator for eating a child as we would be at a person that we expect to be a human being of decency?)
Morality is absolute, yet the vulgar and simple-minded folk must be led to believe it is relative, lest they force their values onto others.
