How to: Build a relative moral framework!

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

aelan, is it calmness/inner stillness that you're looking for? Or is it more kinda an inner framework of values? If it's the latter, I'd be way interested in replies. I deliberately ripped my old values to shreds a few years back (they weren't mine and most of them were unhealthy and icky).

So, I feel a bit adrift, like I'm waiting for clarity (even though I live internally, not externally). I guess um, I don't have any answers but if others do, I'd be way interested in hearing them. I'm kinda being objective about my values now (using Ti to build them from scratch), but I don't necessarily feel them as such, and I kinda get bogged down in defining them precisely, d'oh.

The trouble I have with building value systems is that I never have an anchoring point to start from. If you accept and embrace moral relativity, it's hard to take your value system seriously, even if you did build a personal, subjective system. Once you decide on a good anchoring point, though, you can start to make headway; otherwise, you're just building on quicksand.

*lol*. That pink waving thing makes me nervous. I had asked about Fi as I wanted to know how to develop to become an XXXX simply. I still don't think I'm flexible enough. I was wondering if the lack of it was due to a lack of inner sense of what is important (that was Fi to me simply). Or does an inner sense prevent flex?

- I keep a dancer's posture all day.

- But I tend to hop/skip/bounce when I walk. Work environment not good for calmness. You're right that too many things have stolen my peace of mind, or perhaps I have let them.

So you believe that you lack an inner sense of what's important? Can you elaborate more? (WITHOUT REFERRING TO MBTI!)

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

aelan, is it calmness/inner stillness that you're looking for? Or is it more kinda an inner framework of values? If it's the latter, I'd be way interested in replies. I deliberately ripped my old values to shreds a few years back (they weren't mine and most of them were unhealthy and icky).

So, I feel a bit adrift, like I'm waiting for clarity (even though I live internally, not externally). I guess um, I don't have any answers but if others do, I'd be way interested in hearing them. I'm kinda being objective about my values now (using Ti to build them from scratch), but I don't necessarily feel them as such, and I kinda get bogged down in defining them precisely, d'oh.

The trouble I have with building value systems is that I never have an anchoring point to start from. If you accept and embrace moral relativity, it's hard to take your value system seriously, even if you did build a personal, subjective system. Once you decide on a good anchoring point, though, you can start to make headway; otherwise, you're just building on quicksand.

*lol*. That pink waving thing makes me nervous. I had asked about Fi as I wanted to know how to develop to become an XXXX simply. I still don't think I'm flexible enough. I was wondering if the lack of it was due to a lack of inner sense of what is important (that was Fi to me simply). Or does an inner sense prevent flex?

- I keep a dancer's posture all day.

- But I tend to hop/skip/bounce when I walk. Work environment not good for calmness. You're right that too many things have stolen my peace of mind, or perhaps I have let them.

So you believe that you lack an inner sense of what's important? Can you elaborate more? (WITHOUT REFERRING TO MBTI!)

 

[bluebell]

The trouble I have with building value systems is that I never have an anchoring point to start from. If you accept and embrace moral relativity, it's hard to take your value system seriously, even if you did build a personal, subjective system. Once you decide on a good anchoring point, though, you can start to make headway; otherwise, you're just building on quicksand.

Yeah, moral relativity is definitely something I've embraced - it just seems the logical conclusion of looking at everything (past and present) as a whole.

The anchoring point eludes me. Quicksand is a good analogy. But I've been talking with someone who also ripped their values apart a number of years ago, and where I am at the moment just seems to be part of the process.

I think there's something there underneath. I've found a few things, but there's a sense that it's temporary, everything is up for grabs. In some ways it's quite freeing - I'm not locked into anything, but at the same time, there isn't clarity on a path forward. *shrug* But perhaps fluidity and change can become an anchor point. I'll wait and see I guess.

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

Yeah, moral relativity is definitely something I've embraced - it just seems the logical conclusion of looking at everything (past and present) as a whole.

The anchoring point eludes me. Quicksand is a good analogy. But I've been talking with someone who also ripped their values apart a number of years ago, and where I am at the moment just seems to be part of the process.

I think there's something there underneath. I've found a few things, but there's a sense that it's temporary, everything is up for grabs. In some ways it's quite freeing - I'm not locked into anything, but at the same time, there isn't clarity on a path forward. *shrug* But perhaps fluidity and change can become an anchor point. I'll wait and see I guess.

I share your intuition about there being something there. I'm not sure what, either. Maybe it's something that transcends value systems entirely but only looks like a value system to outsiders ...like us.

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

Yeah, moral relativity is definitely something I've embraced - it just seems the logical conclusion of looking at everything (past and present) as a whole.

The anchoring point eludes me. Quicksand is a good analogy. But I've been talking with someone who also ripped their values apart a number of years ago, and where I am at the moment just seems to be part of the process.

I think there's something there underneath. I've found a few things, but there's a sense that it's temporary, everything is up for grabs. In some ways it's quite freeing - I'm not locked into anything, but at the same time, there isn't clarity on a path forward. *shrug* But perhaps fluidity and change can become an anchor point. I'll wait and see I guess.

I share your intuition about there being something there. I'm not sure what, either. Maybe it's something that transcends value systems entirely but only looks like a value system to outsiders ...like us.

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

Split from Developing your weaker functions.

 

[bluebell]

I share your intuition about there being something there. I'm not sure what, either. Maybe it's something that transcends value systems entirely but only looks like a value system to outsiders ...like us.

I had to think about this for a while.

The something there is more of a personal thing, not really a universal something. More that I'm getting glimpses of the core me, the bits that survived the ripping apart of things. Maybe. Um.

 

[white]

Fi person to comment..... *bleats* How do they do it... I've always found greater comfort in the clear lines of T, but somehow, that doesn't work nowadays...

 

[nightning]

Question from Fe mouse...
How is morality NOT relative?

In saying to build a moral framework, you're automatically working in the realm of relatives. Values differs from person to person... So is Ti having difficulties understanding how you can compare values?

Mouse use the following...

Values... I believe that people should be allowed to believe in whatever they want, so long that they do not try to force their beliefs onto other people, nor do things/cause a cascade of event that affects other people in ways that violate other people's beliefs.

To take an extreme example... Killing somebody is okay so long as that it passes both your personal judgments and that of the person you're about to kill... as well as anybody else directly involved in this business. People should come to a decision by themselves... Explicit informed consent... that is making a decision given that you know all the possible consequences of the action, physically and emotionally to everybody. Knowing all view points. Clearly life isn't that clear cut... you'll get people who can't make their own decisions very well... nor is it possible to know every single darn point of view. But I work with an approximation of that.

Then there's the consistency in values... you must have that... otherwise you can't use the above system. People who don't believe/act in ways consistent to what they say they believe in aren't treated very well by me. That is to say I'll go and evaluate them using the standards I placed on myself... and those are far more stringent the ones based on the above system. But hey... they asked for it...

 

[reason]

The trouble I have with building value systems is that I never have an anchoring point to start from. If you accept and embrace moral relativity, it's hard to take your value system seriously, even if you did build a personal, subjective system. Once you decide on a good anchoring point, though, you can start to make headway; otherwise, you're just building on quicksand.

The quicksand is a problem only because you are looking for a firm foundation. That is a decision which you have made, to look for a firm foundation, not something which is inherent to logic or rationality. It is a consequence of philosophical presuppositions, implicit in the discussion, assumptions which are not beyond error, and indeed are erroneous. There is no need for a firm foundation, or justification, such a pursuit is a fools errand, and rationality is stronger without it as a goal.

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

The quicksand is a problem only because you are looking for a firm foundation. That is a decision which you have made, to look for a firm foundation, not something which is inherent to logic or rationality. It is a consequence of philosophical presuppositions, implicit in the discussion, assumptions which are not beyond error, and indeed are erroneous. There is no need for a firm foundation, or justification, such a pursuit is a fools errand, and rationality is stronger without it as a goal.

Without some anchoring point, it's hard to take your own system seriously, because you realize that it's all dependent on some initial value that you've selected arbitrarily. I'm not sure how "rationality is stronger without it," either. In fact, I don't really know what you're talking about. You seem to be creating a division between rationality and firm foundations. I don't see them as being different. Rationality is used to investigate the strength of your foundations. It's rationality that allows you to gain perspective of your moral system and evaluate its integrity, which ultimately allows you to see its transparent nature.

 

[bluebell]

Question from Fe mouse...
How is morality NOT relative?

In saying to build a moral framework, you're automatically working in the realm of relatives. Values differs from person to person... So is Ti having difficulties understanding how you can compare values?

I can't speak for aelan, but for me, I used Ti to rip down pretty much every value I had. And values aren't just ethics/morality, although that can be part of it.

Something Dansker wrote on INTPc:

I understand values to be deeply held beliefs about what is good or right for us as individuals. I understand them to be our convictions and ideals, representing our highest priorities and driving forces.

Where I'm up to is working out what, if any, deeply held beliefs I have and how I want to live my life. Trouble is, I tend to be ruthlessly objective whenever I do come across something like that, because I want to make sure it's come from me.

Then there's the consistency in values... you must have that... otherwise you can't use the above system. People who don't believe/act in ways consistent to what they say they believe in aren't treated very well by me. That is to say I'll go and evaluate them using the standards I placed on myself... and those are far more stringent the ones based on the above system. But hey... they asked for it...

See - if you accept and believe in moral relativity, even consistency in values isn't something that's solid. And I don't believe in holding others up to my standards - that's not what moral relativism is all about. I find myself doing that, but I deliberately try to break that habit. I guess because one of my values is don't inflict my beliefs or values on others. (ok, just to clarify - I didn't read up on moral relativism and think 'I must follow that'. It's something I've been doing spontaneously for years, and only recently learnt what it was called).

And I prefer to look at a deeper level as to why someone acts differently to what they say they believe in. Ultimately, I guess I'm aiming not to judge others (I'm a long way from that, but that's kinda what I've been working towards for a long time).

The quicksand is a problem only because you are looking for a firm foundation. That is a decision which you have made, to look for a firm foundation, not something which is inherent to logic or rationality. It is a consequence of philosophical presuppositions, implicit in the discussion, assumptions which are not beyond error, and indeed are erroneous. There is no need for a firm foundation, or justification, such a pursuit is a fools errand, and rationality is stronger without it as a goal.

So without a firm foundation, what is there?

Edit: What Edahn said. (cross posted)

 

[Kiddo]

I've tried, but it's difficult.

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/101727-post93.html

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

Moved posts about the merits of moral relativism and its proponents (i.e., seemingly ethical a-moralists) to here. Let the games begin!!

 

[bluebell]

I've tried, but it's difficult.

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/101727-post93.html

That's an excellent post. I'll read and think about it a bit more later.

Questions - was that trying to articulate something that was buried? Or did you work it out logically or...? And how did you integrate this to your core?

 

[Kiddo]

That's an excellent post. I'll read and think about it a bit more later.

Questions - was that trying to articulate something that was buried? Or did you work it out logically or...? And how did you integrate this to your core?

Thanks.

That was venting in response to arguing with a bunch of Ayn Rand toting objectivists.

 

[SillySapienne]

Edahn!!!!!

I'm confused!!!!!

x_o

 

[nightning]

I can't speak for aelan, but for me, I used Ti to rip down pretty much every value I had. And values aren't just ethics/morality, although that can be part of it.

Here I have to scratch my head in puzzlement. For me, Ti can coexists with my values. Did I not search deep enough into the basis for my set of values? Or am I not using Ti in the same manner as you did?

See - if you accept and believe in moral relativity, even consistency in values isn't something that's solid. And I don't believe in holding others up to my standards - that's not what moral relativism is all about. I find myself doing that, but I deliberately try to break that habit.

But there is consistency... Not consistency between my beliefs and other people's, but internal consistency. People should be consistency in their own beliefs. It doesn't matter what those beliefs are, they ought to uphold them in my mind. Well unless they believe in being inconsistent. But I can't evaluate them like that! Anyways, so assuming their values are consistent. It becomes fuzzy logic. Are their actions violating values of people they're affecting? Given their stand point, are there better actions that they can take? And the evaluation goes on from there. The use of Ti on top of values. I don't see any conflicts there.

I guess to some Ts, what my system of approach is inherently "not fair" since I start off initially with a bias evaluation system of values. Because I can't be certain of what other people's values might be, I give them more room for error. Whereas for myself, I know exactly what my values are... so I end up being far harsher on myself than other people. However, I am fair in dealing consistently with other people because I evaluate them all using the same principles. It's only if their values are too inconsistently wobbly (when I get fed up with hypocrites :steam, that I apply my own values to them. In that case it's totally fair in my mind. I gave them the easy option... despite the margin of error I assigned, they still don't fit. So I apply my system to evaluate them with. It's not some randomly impossible set of rules because I use that for myself. So I have no problems with it.

Where I'm up to is working out what, if any, deeply held beliefs I have and how I want to live my life. Trouble is, I tend to be ruthlessly objective whenever I do come across something like that, because I want to make sure it's come from me.

I guess because one of my values is don't inflict my beliefs or values on others.

And I prefer to look at a deeper level as to why someone acts differently to what they say they believe in. Ultimately, I guess I'm aiming not to judge others (I'm a long way from that, but that's kinda what I've been working towards for a long time).

So without a firm foundation, what is there?

*nods* Finding things that you can believe in. I think what Kiddo posted is a good start. I prescribe to my version of those...

From there, you just need to work out what works for you and what doesn't. I think values are self discovered. If somebody else tells you what to believe in, then they're not really your values... Just stuff other people told you.

 

[bluebell]

Thanks.

That was venting in response to arguing with a bunch of Ayn Rand toting objectivists.

lol, I didn't read the rest of the thread. I was in a rush, and just took it at face value. I like objectivity but from what I've seen of Ayn Rand's theories, it's not something that particularly resonates with me.

Here I have to scratch my head in puzzlement. For me, Ti can coexists with my values. Did I not search deep enough into the basis for my set of values? Or am I not using Ti in the same manner as you did?

I deliberately and conciously ripped apart my set of values because they weren't my values. It was due to a particular set of circumstances that not many others are likely to face. So, in general yes, I think Ti can comfortably co-exist with a set of values. I know one other Ti-dominant who did what I did, but only one.

But there is consistency... Not consistency between my beliefs and other people's, but internal consistency. People should be consistency in their own beliefs. It doesn't matter what those beliefs are, they ought to uphold them in my mind. Well unless they believe in being inconsistent. But I can't evaluate them like that! Anyways, so assuming their values are consistent. It becomes fuzzy logic. Are their actions violating values of people they're affecting? Given their stand point, are there better actions that they can take? And the evaluation goes on from there. The use of Ti on top of values. I don't see any conflicts there.

I like your description. I'm still not even sure, though, if it's helpful to aim for self-consistency in my values.Things seem to be depend on the situation. It's... messy. Everything can be seen from so many different angles and I don't know what I personally believe is right.

It's only if their values are too inconsistently wobbly (when I get fed up with hypocrites :steam, that I apply my own values to them. In that case it's totally fair in my mind. I gave them the easy option... despite the margin of error I assigned, they still don't fit. So I apply my system to evaluate them with. It's not some randomly impossible set of rules because I use that for myself. So I have no problems with it.

That's still your personal values though - that one of your values is to judge people using your values in certain situations. I'm not comfortable in judging others with my set of values (I do occasionally do it in the heat of the moment, but I tend to feel sick about it later when I've calmed down). I figure I'm missing data if someone doesn't make sense. I can usually make some attempt at guessing why someone is being so inconsistent and that's where compassion comes from, to understand why people are the way they are. If that makes any sense. Which it might not. I'm unwell and not thinking that clearly.

*nods* Finding things that you can believe in. I think what Kiddo posted is a good start. I prescribe to my version of those...

From there, you just need to work out what works for you and what doesn't.
I think values are self discovered. If somebody else tells you what to believe in, then they're not really your values... Just stuff other people told you.

Well, that's what this thread is about, really. And it's not that simple for me.

 

[nightning]

Well, that's what this thread is about, really. And it's not that simple for me.

Hmmmm let's try this one again then. My Fe misbehaving... with not spending the time to full understand.

Here's a suggestion. When you have the time... google up pages of those old sayings... Those weird chinese ones will do. Read through them, try to derive your own interpretation and see which one sits well with you and go from there? One good thing about those is that there's a self translation process involved. That way you have a place to start, but the end result would be more or less yours?