Good INTJs (Morally/Ethically speaking) [Archive]

Jgib5328

01-06-2008, 10:53 AM

First off I define evil as "a state of being, in which you intentionally, knowingly, and willingly inflict harm on another person, animal, object etc. with malice" (I'm sure there is more to evil to this, but I'm not going to get too deeply into it)

I think that good and evil is a lot less defined in thinking types and that INTJs are especially in a gray area. Certain things that INTJs do can be considered evil or heartless to other people, but could be an action that contained no malice whatsoever. INTJs tend to think rationally about things rather than use their emotions to reason so they may come off as being 'cold' which some people may consider as being 'evil' or a 'bad person'. For example, I told my friends that 9/11 had no tangible emotional affect on me (IE. I didn't care), and they thought that was terrible and heartless. Thoughts like that make people think you are evil, however I think that me being evil would be me taking pleasure from 9/11 happening, not not caring about it. Therefore I think it's harder for thinking types to be considered definitively good or evil.

In feelers it is a lot less gray. I good feeling type would act with compassion and for the well being of others, while an evil feeling type would act out of malice, jealousy, hatred or any other negative emotion. Thinkers are a lot less controlled by these emotions so it is harder for them to be either good or evil.

For me specifically, I think it is harder for INTJs to be specifically good or evil since we aren't expressive of our emotions. I'm sure it is rewarding, but I still probably wouldn't actively do good for society or another person. I have a strong moral code that I follow and strongly believe in. I have made my own morals and principles, rather than take the morals that society has created. I almost never show compassion and have great difficulty feeling it. I am sure that I am capable of self-sacrifice, it would only be for one person that I cared greatly for. I would never sacrifice myself for random people. Being truly good is relative in society, I'd define being truly good as living an honest and sincere life by following your morals and principles without deviation. A truly good person should never expect a reward for an action, or else they wouldn't be truly good. You shouldn't help homeless people expecting other people to be nicer to you, you should do it for the action itself, you should do it to help the homeless. Doing anything for rewards is never truly good, because that is a selfish action. Although, I do believe people should be rewarded for good behavior, but the person shouldn't expect a reward in return, that would corrupt the action or deed.

Paul V

01-06-2008, 11:11 AM

I think of myself as having a strong "moral compass," which I've had since I was a kid... it doesn't come from logic or even necessarily from a sense of compassion, but it is internally driven. I always feel motivated to do the least harm, and I have strong compunctions against lying, cheating, stealing and all that. But these were really just the starting materials. I have really had to work at being honest all the time (not just when it's easy) and it has taken a long time for me to be able to operate out of a sense of kindness and compassion rather than just duty. But this is the direction I want to work in. It's unthinkable to go anywhere else with my life.

Self-sacrifice has been a difficult habit to get into. I still tend to be very self-protective. I intend to work toward that too, though... or at least toward generosity.

Do I believe in a reward? I don't know if it's a good idea to shoot for external rewards, though there are certainly times when the people you've helped will say very nice things. The rewards to me are in the moment. I respect myself more when I'm doing the difficult thing, and I feel better when I'm able to be patient and kind than when I'm impatient or irritable.

I agree with you. However, duty is triggered by a feeling as well. It's a feeling that you have to do that, often powered by a subconscious emotion.

First off I define evil as "a state of being, in which you intentionally, knowingly, and willingly inflict harm on another person, animal, object etc. with malice" (I'm sure there is more to evil to this, but I'm not going to get too deeply into it)

I think that good and evil is a lot less defined in thinking types and that INTJs are especially in a gray area. Certain things that INTJs do can be considered evil or heartless to other people, but could be an action that contained no malice whatsoever. INTJs tend to think rationally about things rather than use their emotions to reason so they may come off as being 'cold' which some people may consider as being 'evil' or a 'bad person'. For example, I told my friends that 9/11 had no tangible emotional affect on me (IE. I didn't care), and they thought that was terrible and heartless. Thoughts like that make people think you are evil, however I think that me being evil would be me taking pleasure from 9/11 happening, not not caring about it. Therefore I think it's harder for thinking types to be considered definitively good or evil.

In feelers it is a lot less gray. I good feeling type would act with compassion and for the well being of others, while an evil feeling type would act out of malice, jealousy, hatred or any other negative emotion. Thinkers are a lot less controlled by these emotions so it is harder for them to be either good or evil.

For me specifically, I think it is harder for INTJs to be specifically good or evil since we aren't expressive of our emotions. I'm sure it is rewarding, but I still probably wouldn't actively do good for society or another person. I have a strong moral code that I follow and strongly believe in. I have made my own morals and principles, rather than take the morals that society has created. I almost never show compassion and have great difficulty feeling it. I am sure that I am capable of self-sacrifice, it would only be for one person that I cared greatly for. I would never sacrifice myself for random people. Being truly good is relative in society, I'd define being truly good as living an honest and sincere life by following your morals and principles without deviation. A truly good person should never expect a reward for an action, or else they wouldn't be truly good. You shouldn't help homeless people expecting other people to be nicer to you, you should do it for the action itself, you should do it to help the homeless. Doing anything for rewards is never truly good, because that is a selfish action. Although, I do believe people should be rewarded for good behavior, but the person shouldn't expect a reward in return, that would corrupt the action or deed.

I've said that very thing in the Evil INTJs thread. Take a read and you'll see the light and the dark side of the Thinkers. I've built my own moral system as well, and I must tell you that I agree with your reward theory. It is quite true that people shouldn't expect rewards, but many people do good things for the rewards they entail. For example, a good-hearted politician (oxymoron, I know) might choose to run for office because he wants to improve his community for the best. He will feel an enourmours sense of accomplishment if he finishes his period and he has managed to achieve all he wanted to achieve.

Maverick

01-06-2008, 01:04 PM

As I've stated before in the Evil INTJs thread, XNTJs have a high potential to be evil, for they are those who will undoubtedly make their plans work. But I wonder, are moral and altruistic causes reserved to INFJs and INFPs? Is it necessary for self-sacrifice and compassion to require being dominated by feelings? I think not. I believe it is perfectly possible for INTJs to be epitomes of goodness (just like any other type), and I can't wait to hear your opinions about it.

Is it harder or easier for us to be good? Is it rewarding? Do you have a moral code? Do you stick to it no matter what? Do you show compassion, even though you're a logical person? Are you capable of self-sacrifice? Only for those you love, or would you sacrifice yourself for a group of strangers? And for humanity? Do you believe it's easier or harder to be truly good in our current world? Do you believe in a reward for your good actions?

Disclaimer: I'm not interested in discussing my point of view of good, evil or neutrality. I'm just justifying my questions.

I would like to think of myself as an ethical person. However, no one is perfect and I have fallen short many times of course. Sometimes I thought I was doing something ethical when in fact I was doing just the opposite. I think it is harder for NTJ's to become good because of the reasons explained in the other thread about morality.

I have a very strong personal code of morality, honor and integrity. It guides my actions. Justice is one of my most important values. I would like to think this is the hallmark of Extraverted Thinking as dominant or auxiliary function. I have had a history of standing up against injustices, confronting authority, leaping out to defend friends, teaching bullies a lesson, etc. I try to treat everyone the same way regardless of who they are and what my feelings are for them. If I must judge people, I establish criteria that I communicate beforehand to make sure people know what to do for their performance. I'm the first one to stand up for my rights and tell off someone trying to walk on them. I have compassion for people unfairly treated or hurt by others. It makes my blood boil. There are certain principles that apply to everyone and others only to those close to me. Some matters are none of my business and are the responsibility of other people.

I think it's much harder to be truly good. Evil gets positive labels by people. It's often seen as fun and smart. Some people find it funny to see others hurt: Schadenfreude. People who seek to do true good may be seen as boring and moralizing. They irritate more than evil people to some extent, because they remind others of their shortcomings. Evil people send the message that it's ok to be flawed, bad and morally weak.

Many people are fascinated with evil in popular culture. Serial killers, manipulators, powermongers, etc. Some females are even more attracted to "evil" men than "good" men. Whole corporations may promote evil through devious politics, backstabbing, unethical practices, and alienating of people with integrity. Evil spreads like a virus. Mistreated people tend to mistreat others in return.

There is a reward for good actions. You convince people far more to your ways through your actions than through words. If you act good, you are essentially showing the example. Good is the logical thing to do for the long term benefit of all. Good is like cooperating in economical game theory. Economical experiments have shown that the best way for everyone to prosper is to strive for win-win instead of win-lose. Evil for me is short term benefit. Evil is tactical, Good is strategic. Evil things may seem like smart things to do, but in the long run they show their weaknesses. Good things may seem more idealistic and difficult to implement, but in the long term show their strengths.

Amen ;)

Paul V

01-06-2008, 01:11 PM

I would like to think of myself as an ethical person. However, no one is perfect and I have fallen short many times of course. Sometimes I thought I was doing something ethical when in fact I was doing just the opposite. I think it is harder for NTJ's to become good because of the reasons explained in the other thread about morality.

I have a very strong personal code of morality, honor and integrity. It guides my actions. Justice is one of my most important values. I would like to think this is the hallmark of Extraverted Thinking as dominant or auxiliary function. I have had a history of standing up against injustices, confronting authority, leaping out to defend friends, teaching bullies a lesson, etc. I try to treat everyone the same way regardless of who they are and what my feelings are for them. If I must judge people, I establish criteria that I communicate beforehand to make sure people know what to do for their performance. I'm the first one to stand up for my rights and tell off someone trying to walk on them. I have compassion for people unfairly treated or hurt by others. It makes my blood boil. There are certain principles that apply to everyone and others only to those close to me. Some matters are none of my business and are the responsibility of other people.

I think it's much harder to be truly good. Evil gets positive labels by people. It's often seen as fun and smart. Some people find it funny to see others hurt: Schadenfreude. People who seek to do true good may be seen as boring and moralizing. They irritate more than evil people to some extent, because they remind others of their shortcomings. Evil people send the message that it's ok to be flawed, bad and morally weak.

Many people are fascinated with evil in popular culture. Serial killers, manipulators, powermongers, etc. Some females are even more attracted to "evil" men than "good" men. Whole corporations may promote evil through devious politics, backstabbing, unethical practices, and alienating of people with integrity. Evil spreads like a virus. Mistreated people tend to mistreat others in return.

There is a reward for good actions. You convince people far more to your ways through your actions than through words. If you act good, you are essentially showing the example. Good is the logical thing to do for the long term benefit of all. Good is like cooperating in economical game theory. Economical experiments have shown that the best way for everyone to prosper is to strive for win-win instead of win-lose. Evil for me is short term benefit. Evil is tactical, Good is strategic. Evil things may seem like smart things to do, but in the long run they show their weaknesses. Good things may seem more idealistic and difficult to implement, but in the long term show their strengths.

Amen ;)

Wow, I agree with you completely. I'd just wish more people were aware of this. But then again, perhaps evil is necessary for good to exist. How do we know we're doing the right thing when we don't have anything to compare it to?

Maverick

01-06-2008, 01:21 PM

Wow, I agree with you completely. I'd just wish more people were aware of this. But then again, perhaps evil is necessary for good to exist. How do we know we're doing the right thing when we don't have anything to compare it to?

Good point. Would we ever be aware of something if we didn't know its contrast... How can we know pleasure without pain, right from wrong, good from bad, etc.

Which makes me think that if the world was perfect we wouldn't realize it. It reminds me of a clever quote from the movie "The Matrix", from "Agent Smith":

Did you know that the first Matrix was designed to be a perfect human world, where none suffered; where everyone would be happy. It was a disaster. No one would accept the program. Entire crops were lost. Some believed that we lacked the programming language to describe your perfect world, but I believe that as a species, human beings define their reality through misery and suffering. So the perfect world we dreamed, but your primitive cerebrum kept trying to wake up from. Which is why The Matrix was redesigned to this...the peak of your civilization

Which means that, when fighting for good, we're fighting for something that would have no sense if achieved.

Paul V

01-06-2008, 01:33 PM

Which means that, when fighting for good, we're fighting for something that would have no sense if achieved.

I don't fight for good for good's sake. I fight for people to be good, in order to counterbalance the natural tendence of people to be evil. I believe the world is heavily unbalanced in the side of evil, because it's easier, as it has already been stated, and because humans are prone to go for the immediate gratification. And I truly, deeply hate unbalance between dualist positions.

Makes me wonder if I'd be fighting for evil should the positions be reversed. I honestly don't know.

Maverick

01-06-2008, 02:48 PM

I don't fight for good for good's sake. I fight for people to be good, in order to counterbalance the natural tendence of people to be evil. I believe the world is heavily unbalanced in the side of evil, because it's easier, as it has already been stated, and because humans are prone to go for the immediate gratification. And I truly, deeply hate unbalance between dualist positions.

Makes me wonder if I'd be fighting for evil should the positions be reversed. I honestly don't know.

Hmmm...

But then, considering there was an imbalance in favor of "good", fighting for evil would actually make things better. Which would then be a good thing ;)

Paul V

01-06-2008, 02:52 PM

Hmmm...

But then, considering there was an imbalance in favor of "good", fighting for evil would actually make things better. Which would then be a good thing ;)

If that were the case, there wouldn't be an imbalance to begin with. ;)

Maverick

01-06-2008, 03:03 PM

If that were the case, there wouldn't be an imbalance to begin with. ;)

:laugh: :thumbsup:

thod

01-06-2008, 03:11 PM

Remember this is the INJ forums. Every single INJ is secretly plotting to take over the world and become master of the universe. All others are weak minded and will be his subjects in time. If he can convince these feeble losers that he is a good and moral man it will make that objective easier. Then he can finaly wipe the planet clean of the sad dullards.

Paul V

01-06-2008, 03:14 PM

The Many

01-06-2008, 05:02 PM

Paul V

01-06-2008, 05:24 PM

First of all I want to, in true Nietzschean fashion, state that good and evil (in the sense of altruism vs. egoism, as implied here) do not exist. Good and bad do however exist, yet these definitions are subjective, and we need to remember that thought tends to mold ones emotions into new ways of thinking. I needed to state this simply to make the rest of my stance possible to understand.

Then, as regards being "good", it is certainly not made out of self-sacrifice. I'd like to think of myself as a "good" person in so far as that I do what I consider to be good according to my own morality and my own ethics, but that doesn't necessarily mean that others would consider certain things I do as "good". I do however enjoy the company of others and I certainly think there is more good than bad in collaboration, at least up until a certain extent.

I'm not going to go on a debate on this, but causing harm to someone who does not wish to be harmed, or killing, in general (even if the person wants to die), is evil, bad or wrong from any point of view. There are certain good and bad things that are subjective, yes, I will agree. But there are other things that are objective, and saying otherwise is (to me) an attempt to justify someone's immorality.

gallihand

01-06-2008, 06:24 PM

One cannot appreciate the light until they have walked in darkness. Think of how little you would think of walking through a random house without hitting into anything or falling down stairs without probing with hands or feet. Now imagine the attempting the same thing in total darkness. Just like our eyes can adjust to a small amount of light and it will seem the same as daylight. When you go from an enclosed room lit by a few light bulbs that seemed perfectly fine into a noon day sun it is blinding and from the noon-day sun into that room it seems dark. But your eyes adjust to whatever the light level is up to a certain point.

The same thing seems to happen with human morals. They adjust to the levels within tolerances. Unless a situation extremely evil people will not notice unless they carefully look for all little things (think of how widely tolerated slavery was for millennia). Today in most countries slavery is seen as extremely evil yet it was once perfectly acceptable and even widely enviable to have many slaves (ancient Greece) by the majority. How then do we define good and evil? In the end I feel it is truly subjective. Like Paul V, I find harming for fun to be wrong but I don't have a problem with certain killings, like those who want to die.

In the end I think you need to define a) what we are defining as good/evil [public opinion or personal] and b) in what time as the definitions slide even in a single human lifetime

The Many

01-08-2008, 08:37 AM

I'm not going to go on a debate on this, but causing harm to someone who does not wish to be harmed, or killing, in general (even if the person wants to die), is evil, bad or wrong from any point of view. There are certain good and bad things that are subjective, yes, I will agree. But there are other things that are objective, and saying otherwise is (to me) an attempt to justify someone's immorality.

No, such things as you mention are neither "evil", "bad" nor "wrong" from any point of view. Look at all the wars, terrorist attacks and what-have-you in the world. Certainly there are people who do not think such things are evil, bad or wrong - I even know that I myself could have killed a couple of people in the past if it wasn't for laws which would then end up limiting my freedom. Laws and legality are actually worth noticing, they are instituted moralities put in place to make sure a society works.

So what reasoning do you have behind defining certain things as immoral for everyone? It is obvious enough that your hypothesis, at least concerning the examples you have mentioned, is falsified considering the examples above, but still. I mean, you are correct in that my claims attempt to justify immorality, but only according to your moral standards, for which I see neither basis nor reason.

The most common argument here is that since human beings only can view the world subjectively there can be no objective understanding of "good" and "evil", but as I mentioned above, there certainly is "good" and "bad", yet these can only range from a subjective understanding. I even call my very own philosophy Moralism, given that its main purpose is to develop an understanding of the world and thus a creation of values; then establishing moralities (that is to say, conscious rules towards achieving these). Now, striving towards absolutes as you seem to do is certainly fair enough and I quite agree in that murder (unless consensual, but that is beside the point) etc should be illegal, but it is quite impossible, at least as of yet, to establish this as objectively true.

There. You got your debate even thought you didn't want to... Reply if you'd wish. :p

Danisty

01-08-2008, 12:08 PM

Who's morals and ethics? I could argue that all INTJs are morally and ethically good because of the tendency to value integrity, honor, and justice. Everyone just doesn't follow the same morals and ethics. I can't really imagine an INTJ that doesn't stick to what they personally believe is right and good though. We're pretty stubborn that way.

Jedi_sena

01-08-2008, 02:33 PM

I have always thought that I could be a martyr. Whenever I hear Dr. Phil ask "do you want to be right or do you want to be happy?" I always answer, "I'd rather be RIGHT!" My husband says that everything is a giant cause with me. I would never steal something or cheat on my husband. I've never done drugs or even smoked a cigarette because in my personal value system those things are wrong and therefore unthinkable.

That being said, I probably wouldn't sacrifice myself for a person, but wouldn't hesitate for a cause.

INTJoe

01-08-2008, 02:37 PM

As I've stated before in the Evil INTJs thread, XNTJs have a high potential to be evil, for they are those who will undoubtedly make their plans work.

Do you show compassion, even though you're a logical person? Are you capable of self-sacrifice? Only for those you love, or would you sacrifice yourself for a group of strangers? And for humanity? Do you believe it's easier or harder to be truly good in our current world? Do you believe in a reward for your good actions?

I wouldn't say NTJ's have a high potential to be evil. We just might appear moreso, due to the fact that we might be more able to carry out evil plans, if scorned. I know I am capable of holding a pretty serious grudge, if I've legitimately been wronged. F's and P's are probably less capable.

I have compassion, and I'm not sure why this would be linked to logic. I may not show it in physical ways, but I'd be the type to make a sizeable donation anonymously.

I am definitely capable of self-sacrifice, even for strangers, IF I feel the cause is logical. :)

I'd say it's equally easy to be good or bad, as there are an equal amount of opportunities for both.

I do believe in a reward for good actions. But I don't expect it. And it wouldn't be the driving motivation, either.

Paul V

01-08-2008, 08:04 PM

No, such things as you mention are neither "evil", "bad" nor "wrong" from any point of view. Look at all the wars, terrorist attacks and what-have-you in the world. Certainly there are people who do not think such things are evil, bad or wrong - I even know that I myself could have killed a couple of people in the past if it wasn't for laws which would then end up limiting my freedom. Laws and legality are actually worth noticing, they are instituted moralities put in place to make sure a society works.

So what reasoning do you have behind defining certain things as immoral for everyone? It is obvious enough that your hypothesis, at least concerning the examples you have mentioned, is falsified considering the examples above, but still. I mean, you are correct in that my claims attempt to justify immorality, but only according to your moral standards, for which I see neither basis nor reason.

The most common argument here is that since human beings only can view the world subjectively there can be no objective understanding of "good" and "evil", but as I mentioned above, there certainly is "good" and "bad", yet these can only range from a subjective understanding. I even call my very own philosophy Moralism, given that its main purpose is to develop an understanding of the world and thus a creation of values; then establishing moralities (that is to say, conscious rules towards achieving these). Now, striving towards absolutes as you seem to do is certainly fair enough and I quite agree in that murder (unless consensual, but that is beside the point) etc should be illegal, but it is quite impossible, at least as of yet, to establish this as objectively true.

There. You got your debate even thought you didn't want to... Reply if you'd wish. :p

Sigh. You're going to find my views really different from yours. I just hope you're not like everyone else and start flaming me and calling me a hypocrit just for being different. War (and the killing that derives from it) is only not-wrong when it is used to defend yourself from an army who is actively invading your land, and killing your people. In any other event (such as, when the army surrendered), it is wrong.

I will not detail my moral philosophy, for it'd take more than the 9000 characters limit of this post, so I will just answer what you asked me: It is a self-made system that is based on logic, feelings, philosophy and history.

You are a Relative Moralist. You believe that there's no such thing as objective morality, and that all situations are subjective. That puts you right at the edge of the slippery slope called Nihilism, in which nothing matters, since nothing has a purpose. If all moral actions are subjective, then no objective morality can be defined, which means that laws cannot be based on morality, which causes 99% of the current laws to crumble, leading to chaos and anarchism. No, I do not adhere to that philosophical belief. And yes, morality can be objective. There is a principle called inter-subjectivity, which was developed for science, in which it is stated that with enough people agreeing on a certain subjective matter, an objective matter arises from the consensus.

I replied. Satisfied?

Who's morals and ethics? I could argue that all INTJs are morally and ethically good because of the tendency to value integrity, honor, and justice. Everyone just doesn't follow the same morals and ethics. I can't really imagine an INTJ that doesn't stick to what they personally believe is right and good though. We're pretty stubborn that way.

It depends on whether those morals and ethics are truly moral and ethical. It's really easy to disguise something as "my ethical code", and use it to justify evil acts.

I have always thought that I could be a martyr. Whenever I hear Dr. Phil ask "do you want to be right or do you want to be happy?" I always answer, "I'd rather be RIGHT!" My husband says that everything is a giant cause with me. I would never steal something or cheat on my husband. I've never done drugs or even smoked a cigarette because in my personal value system those things are wrong and therefore unthinkable.

That being said, I probably wouldn't sacrifice myself for a person, but wouldn't hesitate for a cause.

Wow. I swear, I was just telling my best friend the other day that very thing. And I fully agree with you. I haven't done either, and I'd never do either of those things.

Oh, wow. To me, sacrificing myself for someone IS sacrificing myself for a cause. It's for the cause of humanity. Every life counts. Every life is sacred. Every single person can make the world a better place. Sure, they can also destroy it, but if your sacrifice can turn that person into someone who's willing to make a change for the best, then you've got yourself someone who will carry on with your cause after you're gone, and who will (luckily) show to others that the path of goodness is what keeps the world alive.

I wouldn't say NTJ's have a high potential to be evil. We just might appear moreso, due to the fact that we might be more able to carry out evil plans, if scorned. I know I am capable of holding a pretty serious grudge, if I've legitimately been wronged. F's and P's are probably less capable.

I have compassion, and I'm not sure why this would be linked to logic. I may not show it in physical ways, but I'd be the type to make a sizeable donation anonymously.

I am definitely capable of self-sacrifice, even for strangers, IF I feel the cause is logical. :)

I'd say it's equally easy to be good or bad, as there are an equal amount of opportunities for both.

I do believe in a reward for good actions. But I don't expect it. And it wouldn't be the driving motivation, either.

"Hell hath no fury like an INTJ scorned."

Compassion does not equal charity. Compassion is feeling bad for the pain of others, and trying to do your best to alleviate it. It might sound like an F thing, but if you look deeper and realise how better we'd all be if we were all compassionate, then you realise it sounds like T as well.

Nobody asks you to sacrifice yourself for an illogical cause.

It wouldn't be called temptation if it was just as easy to be good.

I was wondering how INTJs would react to the whole reward thing. Hum....

Danisty

01-09-2008, 09:08 AM

It depends on whether those morals and ethics are truly moral and ethical. It's really easy to disguise something as "my ethical code", and use it to justify evil acts.Well I'm one of those terrible moral relativists digging my heels in on the edge of a slippery slope, so I don't expect to come to any kind of agreement on this. ;D

Paul V

01-09-2008, 12:09 PM

Well I'm one of those terrible moral relativists digging my heels in on the edge of a slippery slope, so I don't expect to come to any kind of agreement on this. ;D

Apologies if I sounded too harsh, but Nihilists and Moral Relativists annoy me to no end. If nothing is objective, nothing can be meassured, and nothing has a purpose, then why don't you take a gun and remove yourself from that horrible existence? You'll be doing a favour to yourself and to all of us who are tired of your depressing banter.

Edit: This is something truly depressing I just ran into while managing my country in nationstates.net:

"I reckon you could just ignore these zealots and scrap any government funding we still have going into religion," says Jack Summers, author of the wildly unpopular book 'Face It, There Is No Afterlife'. "I can't believe that modern thinkers like you and me are still tying ourselves down with outmoded and outdated concepts like the 'soul' or 'God'. Just drop all funding and give everyone a bit of a tax break. At least then we can be a bit richer before the long infinite void of oblivion at the end of our small, feeble, insignificant little lives."

I'd honestly look at the poor lad with a mixture of pity and disgust. I'm not a religious person, but that attitude is just excessive.

Hdier

01-09-2008, 01:39 PM

Firstly, let me say up front that the world is not black and white. There's a lot of gray.

To me, the world has a lot of color, metaphorically speaking (and literally speaking!)

jdc127

01-09-2008, 02:06 PM

I think we need to transcend this good/evil notion and most other relative and dualistic misconceptions of reality. Also, after reading some Eckhart Tolle yesterday, I would like to point out that it is our ego-centric mental prisons from which we operate. Further, anything we do from the perspective of these prisons is bound to contribute to or at least does little to change the undeniable sickness and madness that our unconcscious egomaniacal selves will create through our unending and completely illogical quest for more and more.

Look at humanity collectively as a person. Analyze them. They are pathological and criminally insane with little or no regard for themselves, others, or even their planet. Some bright lucid spots of course, but I believe that the flowering of human consciousness is just now truly beginning, at the precise time when it is becoming painfully evident to the previously ignorant masses - evolve or die.

This is why I am an pragmatic optimist - humanity has a chance. Further, i think that rational types can be some of those on the forefront of this change. We are not afraid of evolution and change (generally speaking.) We are not afraid to let go of our petty concerns and ego-centric desires if it really comes down to it (i.e. we see it as a valuable goal). What other that the evolution of consciousness through the human species is more worth pursuing? What else even matters?

INTJoe

01-09-2008, 02:56 PM

Compassion does not equal charity. Compassion is feeling bad for the pain of others, and trying to do your best to alleviate it. It might sound like an F thing, but if you look deeper and realise how better we'd all be if we were all compassionate, then you realise it sounds like T as well..

Well yes, but my charity would be born from compassion. If I felt the desire to be charitable towards cancer research, then that is directly related to me feeling sorrow for cancer sufferers. Would anyone ever be charitable for a cause in which they weren't passionate?

I think INTJ's, well myself at least, can have a great deal of compassion for sufferers who are suffering not because of their own doings. But if someone continually makes mistake after mistake after mistake, and they suffer because of it, I'll likely not feel much, if any, compassion for them. I do think strong F's might be likely to feel compassion for ANYone suffering, without making qualification as to what caused the suffering. I could be wrong.

"realize how better we'd all be if we were all compassionate"? I think you are begging the question here. Would "we" (humankind) really be 'better off' if we were all compassionate?

I think society takes both types, the cold, calculating rationals and the sympathetic guardian types.

Paul V

01-09-2008, 03:57 PM

To me, the world has a lot of color, metaphorically speaking (and literally speaking!)

I agree, but it still doesn't change what I'm saying.

I think we need to transcend this good/evil notion and most other relative and dualistic misconceptions of reality. Also, after reading some Eckhart Tolle yesterday, I would like to point out that it is our ego-centric mental prisons from which we operate. Further, anything we do from the perspective of these prisons is bound to contribute to or at least does little to change the undeniable sickness and madness that our unconcscious egomaniacal selves will create through our unending and completely illogical quest for more and more.

Look at humanity collectively as a person. Analyze them. They are pathological and criminally insane with little or no regard for themselves, others, or even their planet. Some bright lucid spots of course, but I believe that the flowering of human consciousness is just now truly beginning, at the precise time when it is becoming painfully evident to the previously ignorant masses - evolve or die.

This is why I am an pragmatic optimist - humanity has a chance. Further, i think that rational types can be some of those on the forefront of this change. We are not afraid of evolution and change (generally speaking.) We are not afraid to let go of our petty concerns and ego-centric desires if it really comes down to it (i.e. we see it as a valuable goal). What other that the evolution of consciousness through the human species is more worth pursuing? What else even matters?

Sigh. Another relative moralist. While you might be right in the part that nothing good will come out if we treat the principles of good and evil as egoistical prisions, we need a moral compass to guide ourselves in the grayness. To pretend that morality is unnecessary or obsolete is to cleverly justify the most heinous acts.

I agree that mankind is naturally prone to evil, and that it still has a chance to improve. But the question is: Will the world endure until humanity has made its change? I doubt it, but I sure as hell hope to be wrong.

danalaina

01-09-2008, 04:30 PM

Is it harder or easier for us to be good?
not sure about this one. religion would tame some, perhaps, and the rest might simply recognize the value of an orderly society.

Is it rewarding?
i feel good when i do good.

Do you have a moral code? Do you stick to it no matter what?
yes, i have very strict ideas of right and wrong. i try very hard to stick to it, though, honestly, it's not much of a struggle most of the time. i have a harder time applying my absolutes to others, though. there are too many shades-of-gray situations where i might give someone the benefit of the doubt.

Do you show compassion, even though you're a logical person?
yes, though i won't go to pity parties. i draw the line when someone wants to sit and stew.

Are you capable of self-sacrifice? Only for those you love, or would you sacrifice yourself for a group of strangers? And for humanity?
yes, and not just for myself or for loved ones. i can't say "for humanity," though. i don't think anything i've done really registers on that scale.

Do you believe it's easier or harder to be truly good in our current world?
it's all relative, i think. without intimately knowing the situation from another time, i don't think we can really answer this. it also depends on a person's personal code, though. example - if someone believes that porn is a terrible evil but very attractive, then it might be harder for that person to be good now, because porn is so easily accessible. i might have some technology-related ideas buried in my code somewhere, but if i have, they're not coming readily to mind.

Do you believe in a reward for your good actions?
beyond feeling good? no. i do sort of vaguely believe in the idea of karma/golden rule, but not in the do-this-and-be-rewarded sense. i think that you deserve to get what you put out there if you're a miserable turd who likes making others miserable, is all. i don't personally think there's any big "do this or else" entity out there to punish me either way, so what good i do is done just for the jollies and perhaps a small sense of social responsibility.

Paul V

01-09-2008, 04:42 PM

Well yes, but my charity would be born from compassion. If I felt the desire to be charitable towards cancer research, then that is directly related to me feeling sorrow for cancer sufferers. Would anyone ever be charitable for a cause in which they weren't passionate?

I think INTJ's, well myself at least, can have a great deal of compassion for sufferers who are suffering not because of their own doings. But if someone continually makes mistake after mistake after mistake, and they suffer because of it, I'll likely not feel much, if any, compassion for them. I do think strong F's might be likely to feel compassion for ANYone suffering, without making qualification as to what caused the suffering. I could be wrong.

"realize how better we'd all be if we were all compassionate"? I think you are begging the question here. Would "we" (humankind) really be 'better off' if we were all compassionate?

I think society takes both types, the cold, calculating rationals and the sympathetic guardian types.

As I've said before, "You can only save those who want to be saved."

How many times have people suffered and plummetted into misery because someone refused to help them, or because they failed to show compassion? How much better would the world be if people helped each other instead of selfishly striving to complete their own goals? And what makes you think a cold, calculating person needs not have compassion? I've felt countless times compassion towards people I've treated coldly. Sometimes, you have to do the logical thing, regardless of what I felt about them.

not sure about this one. religion would tame some, perhaps, and the rest might simply recognize the value of an orderly society.

i feel good when i do good.

yes, i have very strict ideas of right and wrong. i try very hard to stick to it, though, honestly, it's not much of a struggle most of the time. i have a harder time applying my absolutes to others, though. there are too many shades-of-gray situations where i might give someone the benefit of the doubt.

yes, though i won't go to pity parties. i draw the line when someone wants to sit and stew.

yes, and not just for myself or for loved ones. i can't say "for humanity," though. i don't think anything i've done really registers on that scale.

it's all relative, i think. without intimately knowing the situation from another time, i don't think we can really answer this. it also depends on a person's personal code, though. example - if someone believes that porn is a terrible evil but very attractive, then it might be harder for that person to be good now, because porn is so easily accessible. i might have some technology-related ideas buried in my code somewhere, but if i have, they're not coming readily to mind.

beyond feeling good? no. i do sort of vaguely believe in the idea of karma/golden rule, but not in the do-this-and-be-rewarded sense. i think that you deserve to get what you put out there if you're a miserable turd who likes making others miserable, is all. i don't personally think there's any big "do this or else" entity out there to punish me either way, so what good i do is done just for the jollies and perhaps a small sense of social responsibility.

Thanks for your imput. It's nice to see all the varied responses I'm getting here. :)

INTJoe

01-09-2008, 06:18 PM

How many times have people suffered and plummetted into misery because someone refused to help them, or because they failed to show compassion? How much better would the world be if people helped each other instead of selfishly striving to complete their own goals? And what makes you think a cold, calculating person needs not have compassion? I've felt countless times compassion towards people I've treated coldly. Sometimes, you have to do the logical thing, regardless of what I felt about them.

"How many times have people suffered and plummetted into misery because someone...failed to show compassion?"

I don't know but you don't have to show compassion to have compassion. Are you talking about humans needing to "have" more compassion, or show more compassion? Because I don't know if you can really drastically change the amount of compassion you HAVE, but you can change the amount you show.

"How much better would the world be if people helped each other instead of selfishly striving to complete their own goals?"

In my opinion, 'selfishly completing my own goals' will make the world a better place. I could be wrong, but that's what I'm out to do.

"And what makes you think a cold, calculating person needs not have compassion? I've felt countless times compassion towards people I've treated coldly."

I didn't say that...I was just using the blanket juxtaposition of cold vs. compassionate. I agree, sometimes telling someone "No" when they really want to hear "Yes" is the most compassionate thing you can do.

truefusion

01-09-2008, 06:55 PM

Although many may take a pragmatist's view on morality, there will always be a philosophy known as Justice. Justice is the definition of what is good and bad. Some may see Justice as an "attempt" at defining these things, but Justice is a well thought-out structure of morality. Let's consider murder, for example. Murder, in the view of Justice, is the killing of the innocent. Therefore it cannot be said that killing the guilty is murder in the eyes of Justice. Of course, since i bring up such an example, i may be seen as a cold person. I myself have studied Justice to a great extent, but even with my research, i do realize that there are times where making a just decision required the inquiry of others' opinions on the matter. Although i say "philosophy," i believe Justice to be more firm than that, where it is more of a law.

Absolute morality, in my opinion, can be perceived when one ponders on a subject properly or long enough. In a lot of cases, Justice is found present within these conclusions. Let's consider war: It is wrong for others to spark war for the sake of feeling superior, but it is perfectly all right to engage in a war in order to defend—whether you or others—because the threat was too much to ignore.

As an INTJ myself, valuing integrity, justice, knowledge, theories, etc, it is fully possible for an INTJ to be seen as "good" in the eyes of the public. However, i would rather appear to be stubborn and arrogant to others than to support something that i find to be foolishness or non-sense. In this case, "arrogance" and "stubborness" is justified. Being NT types, it shouldn't be hard to argue for justified arrogance and stubborness.

[1]Firstly, let me say up front that the world is not black and white. There's a lot of gray. To me, it's called neutrality and a high percentage of the population falls in this area.

[...]

[2]Is it harder or easier for us to be good? [3:1]Is it rewarding? [4]Do you have a moral code? [5]Do you stick to it no matter what? [6:1]Do you show compassion, even though you're a logical person? [6:2]Are you capable of self-sacrifice? [6:3]Only for those you love, or would you sacrifice yourself for a group of strangers? [6:4]And for humanity? [7]Do you believe it's easier or harder to be truly good in our current world? [3:2]Do you believe in a reward for your good actions?
[1]I suppose, now-a-days, the same can be said for a coin. The statement has been said, "There are two sides to a coin." If we were to consider that the coin is an American quarter through implication, then the "grey" areas would be the copper in the middle. (Copper is what is in the middle, right? I forget...)

[2]If you isolate yourself, sure, i suppose. But one might then feel like they're not being true to themselves. But this question, i would agree, bears subjectivity. For it's either how you see yourself or how others see you. In both cases, integrity can be apparent, but integrity is most, if not always, found in the latter case. Since INTJs tend to have high standards (of which may keep growing), i suppose we are capable of making it harder for ourselves. But truly, in general, it is hard to be good to that extent, since there is temptation for evil more than there is temptation for good. In fact, because of that, it may even be hard to be good to a smaller or lesser extent.

[3:1]It can be, but definitely when there is some kind of favored outcome or benefit in the long run.

[3:2]This implies an afterlife, but it can also be taken as this current life. "Reward" can be in the sense as stated in my 3:1. And then of course there's material gain or an increase of integrity or favor in the eyes of others.

Concerning the afterlife: I do believe in a just God and the afterlife pertaining to Him. But if i remember correctly, somewhere in Revelations it says that equality will be an absolute; that is, if one lacks, the one that has shall give to the one that lacks until both have an equal share. I'm not saying that i'm going to Heaven, but it's good to know of such a thing. And considering this, one might work just to have more. If it has been said that you will have the same amount of things that others have, then any work for the goodness of man kind would not be because of material gain.

[4]Yes; i have questioned it heavily to make sure i am following what i believe to be the right morals.

[5]Unfortunately, this is something that is extremely hard for humans to do. Whenever i am embarrassed by a previous action of mine, i am greatly inclined to lie in order to keep my integrity. I guess you can say this is where integrity can be seen as a bad thing. However, that is not the case if we consider that telling the truth is increasing integrity with others. As, i believe, George Washington put it, "I cannot tell a lie." In the end, lies are shown, so why lie? We should consider this, as we are ones that look to the future, the "big picture" as some put it.

[6:1]Yes. Actually, it is through logical means that i convince myself to take a step forward in compassion.

[6:2]Yes.

[6:3]If i were in a predicament where i had to choose bewteen the two, i would consider, "Well, my loved ones are within a group of people, might as well save them all."(—does this sound a bit over confident to you? ;D) Obviously i value my loved ones more than strangers. But it'd be easier to motivate a crowd with someone's help rather than being the only one attempting to. It is quite hard to save someone who is unwilling. Being an INTJ, i am more inclined to work at a problem until it is solved. However, that's assuming i have enough time to solve the problem.

[6:4]Humanity is just a bigger group of people—a rather large one at that. :p With humanity, it requires more than just one person to make an apparent change. But yes for humanity. If we consider the benefits our INTJ minds can give to a community or humanity itself, then we are fully capable of benefitting others to a big extent. Of course there are some drawbacks we can bring into a society, but being willing to work within a group and consider others' opinions and viewpoints, INTJs have been known to achieve higher things.

[7]Although you mention "current", it's basically just been history repeating itself while taking into consideration the advancements of that culture. As far as i see it, foolishness is everywhere. As it has been said, "bad company corrupts good character." The question seems to bear subjectivity again. But in general, i would say it is hard to be good in the sense of personal achievement. For the non-sense of others can make you look better. :p However, it is better if you increase your integrity by your own actions and not the actions of others. Because when it is time for you to act, you might just lose all of the integrity that you've gained because of others' actions. ;)

But then again, perhaps evil is necessary for good to exist. How do we know we're doing the right thing when we don't have anything to compare it to?
Both subjectivity and objectivity come into play here. I guess we start defining things here. ;D Let's consider this following statement:
One cannot appreciate the light until they have walked in darkness.
To the blind man, light does not exist, but in reality it does. A man in a room with no light is equal to a blind man. Just 'cause one has not bore (bear?) witness to light does not mean that light doesn't exist, and vice versa. As gallihand puts it, "one cannot appreciate [it]." Appreciation is subjective. They still exist, just not in the thought. We define things for referencing reasons. If we never have to use it as reference, then there is no need to use words like "good" or "bad." For if we consider light as "good" and darkness as "bad", then both can still exist—whether or not we are conscious of it; all they have to do is make themselves apparent to us for us to consider them. :)

Paul V

01-09-2008, 10:06 PM

Although many may take a pragmatist's view on morality, there will always be a philosophy known as Justice. Justice is the definition of what is good and bad. Some may see Justice as an "attempt" at defining these things, but Justice is a well thought-out structure of morality. Let's consider murder, for example. Murder, in the view of Justice, is the killing of the innocent. Therefore it cannot be said that killing the guilty is murder in the eyes of Justice. Of course, since i bring up such an example, i may be seen as a cold person. I myself have studied Justice to a great extent, but even with my research, i do realize that there are times where making a just decision required the inquiry of others' opinions on the matter. Although i say "philosophy," i believe Justice to be more firm than that, where it is more of a law.

To me, killing anyone that is not actively and directly attempting to end someone's life is not good, and will always be wrong. But I agree with you in every other point. But I really hope you realise Justice is nothing but consensual and legalised philosophy.

Absolute morality, in my opinion, can be perceived when one ponders on a subject properly or long enough. In a lot of cases, Justice is found present within these conclusions. Let's consider war: It is wrong for others to spark war for the sake of feeling superior, but it is perfectly all right to engage in a war in order to defend—whether you or others—because the threat was too much to ignore.

To me, war can only be used in reaction to an invasion, and all hostilities must cease when the enemy surrenders or ceases to attack. This way promotes the least amount of lost lives.

As an INTJ myself, valuing integrity, justice, knowledge, theories, etc, it is fully possible for an INTJ to be seen as "good" in the eyes of the public. However, i would rather appear to be stubborn and arrogant to others than to support something that i find to be foolishness or non-sense. In this case, "arrogance" and "stubborness" is justified. Being NT types, it shouldn't be hard to argue for justified arrogance and stubborness.

Who said arrogance and stubborness are bad things? To me, they're relative. If you defend something bad, you're stubborn, if you defend something good, you're stalwart. Bah, bollocks.

[1]I suppose, now-a-days, the same can be said for a coin. The statement has been said, "There are two sides to a coin." If we were to consider that the coin is an American quarter through implication, then the "grey" areas would be the copper in the middle. (Copper is what is in the middle, right? I forget...)

Errrr... I believe that is a fine analogy, yes, sir.

[2]If you isolate yourself, sure, i suppose. But one might then feel like they're not being true to themselves. But this question, i would agree, bears subjectivity. For it's either how you see yourself or how others see you. In both cases, integrity can be apparent, but integrity is most, if not always, found in the latter case. Since INTJs tend to have high standards (of which may keep growing), i suppose we are capable of making it harder for ourselves. But truly, in general, it is hard to be good to that extent, since there is temptation for evil more than there is temptation for good. In fact, because of that, it may even be hard to be good to a smaller or lesser extent.

Which is why I fight for balance. Balance is the ultimate good, for which it is the place where everything has its place, everything fits and there is no excess. Too bad it's only an ideal.

[3:1]It can be, but definitely when there is some kind of favored outcome or benefit in the long run.

Oh.

[3:2]This implies an afterlife, but it can also be taken as this current life. "Reward" can be in the sense as stated in my 3:1. And then of course there's material gain or an increase of integrity or favor in the eyes of others.

Concerning the afterlife: I do believe in a just God and the afterlife pertaining to Him. But if i remember correctly, somewhere in Revelations it says that equality will be an absolute; that is, if one lacks, the one that has shall give to the one that lacks until both have an equal share. I'm not saying that i'm going to Heaven, but it's good to know of such a thing. And considering this, one might work just to have more. If it has been said that you will have the same amount of things that others have, then any work for the goodness of man kind would not be because of material gain.

[4]Yes; i have questioned it heavily to make sure i am following what i believe to be the right morals.

[5]Unfortunately, this is something that is extremely hard for humans to do. Whenever i am embarrassed by a previous action of mine, i am greatly inclined to lie in order to keep my integrity. I guess you can say this is where integrity can be seen as a bad thing. However, that is not the case if we consider that telling the truth is increasing integrity with others. As, i believe, George Washington put it, "I cannot tell a lie." In the end, lies are shown, so why lie? We should consider this, as we are ones that look to the future, the "big picture" as some put it.

[6:1]Yes. Actually, it is through logical means that i convince myself to take a step forward in compassion.

[6:2]Yes.

[6:3]If i were in a predicament where i had to choose bewteen the two, i would consider, "Well, my loved ones are within a group of people, might as well save them all."(—does this sound a bit over confident to you? ;D) Obviously i value my loved ones more than strangers. But it'd be easier to motivate a crowd with someone's help rather than being the only one attempting to. It is quite hard to save someone who is unwilling. Being an INTJ, i am more inclined to work at a problem until it is solved. However, that's assuming i have enough time to solve the problem.

Hah, no I agree. Though I will do equal efforts to save both. You never know when a stranger might accomplish a great good.

[6:4]Humanity is just a bigger group of people—a rather large one at that. :p With humanity, it requires more than just one person to make an apparent change. But yes for humanity. If we consider the benefits our INTJ minds can give to a community or humanity itself, then we are fully capable of benefitting others to a big extent. Of course there are some drawbacks we can bring into a society, but being willing to work within a group and consider others' opinions and viewpoints, INTJs have been known to achieve higher things.

I think it might be possible for one people to make a great change, should the person have the necessary personality and the necessary happenings around him/her in order to trigger such change. Martin Luther King, Mother Theresa of Calcuta, Joan of Arc, etc.

[7]Although you mention "current", it's basically just been history repeating itself while taking into consideration the advancements of that culture. As far as i see it, foolishness is everywhere. As it has been said, "bad company corrupts good character." The question seems to bear subjectivity again. But in general, i would say it is hard to be good in the sense of personal achievement. For the non-sense of others can make you look better. :p However, it is better if you increase your integrity by your own actions and not the actions of others. Because when it is time for you to act, you might just lose all of the integrity that you've gained because of others' actions. ;)

Problem is, you're on the dangerous slippery slope of crushing others to accomplish your goals.

Both subjectivity and objectivity come into play here. I guess we start defining things here. ;D Let's consider this following statement:

To the blind man, light does not exist, but in reality it does. A man in a room with no light is equal to a blind man. Just 'cause one has not bore (bear?) witness to light does not mean that light doesn't exist, and vice versa. As gallihand puts it, "one cannot appreciate [it]." Appreciation is subjective. They still exist, just not in the thought. We define things for referencing reasons. If we never have to use it as reference, then there is no need to use words like "good" or "bad." For if we consider light as "good" and darkness as "bad", then both can still exist—whether or not we are conscious of it; all they have to do is make themselves apparent to us for us to consider them. :)

A blind man knows light exists. That's where the whole thing crumbles. He has to be a fool or a madman in order not to believe what everyone else says. But I completely agree with that statement, and I congratulate you for such a fine example.

Paul V

01-09-2008, 10:07 PM

"How many times have people suffered and plummetted into misery because someone...failed to show compassion?"

I don't know but you don't have to show compassion to have compassion. Are you talking about humans needing to "have" more compassion, or show more compassion? Because I don't know if you can really drastically change the amount of compassion you HAVE, but you can change the amount you show.

Show. It doesn't matter what you feel if others can't benefit from it.

"How much better would the world be if people helped each other instead of selfishly striving to complete their own goals?"

In my opinion, 'selfishly completing my own goals' will make the world a better place. I could be wrong, but that's what I'm out to do.

Depends on your goals. Becoming rich through the harming and destroying of people and natural resources will not make the world a better place.

"And what makes you think a cold, calculating person needs not have compassion? I've felt countless times compassion towards people I've treated coldly."

I didn't say that...I was just using the blanket juxtaposition of cold vs. compassionate. I agree, sometimes telling someone "No" when they really want to hear "Yes" is the most compassionate thing you can do.

Indeed.

truefusion

01-10-2008, 05:38 AM

To me, killing anyone that is not actively and directly attempting to end someone's life is not good, and will always be wrong. But I agree with you in every other point. But I really hope you realise Justice is nothing but consensual and legalised philosophy.
I agree with all of this without it contradicting my previous statements. But i have something to say concerning "attempting": Attempting implies that they have not yet killed anyone, but what about those that have killed?—this is what i meant by the guilty. Although this would basically start a "should we kill murderers?" debate, i feel that it would be improper to say that it is okay to kill those that are attempting to kill others but not those that have killed others. Many have argued potential—what about the potential of change? They've also argued: Well, what if they're innocent? I considered their questions, and have come up with a way to improve the current death penalty system, which takes its stand in the middle of it all.

The system is basically this: If a person is given the death penalty, there will be a specific time period to prove their innocence after their judgment. The person will spend 10 years in prison. After the ten years are up, their case is to be re-opened. If found guilty, they are to return back to jail. They are then asked if they are willing to repent and change. If they say "yes," they'll be released to test their potential. They will, however, be greatly monitored (tapped phones, van at the corner of their home, etc...) for 5 years. If they maintain their integrity, then after those 5 years have passed, they will be placed on house arrest. If they maintain their integrity for 10 years, they will be taken off of house arrest and be placed on an even lesser form of monitoring (like a call every now and then, or whatever else they have...). If they fail to maintain their integrity, they are placed back in jail. If they are placed back in jail, they will have to wait another ten years. After the ten years, their case will be re-opened. In this case they may choose to argue for their integrity loss. If found guilty, they return to jail. If they've argued well for their integrity loss, they will be given another chance to prove their potential. The same monitoring efforts as the previous one will take affect here. If they lose their integrity, back to jail. Again, they are to wait 10 years. There case will be re-opened again after the 10 years. If found guilty, then the death penalty.

I say every ten years, because Science is said to advance every ten years. People have been known to be found innocent thanks to technological advancement. One may argue: Well, what if they are found innocent after their thirty(+) years? Of course, we can only say sorry and that we'll try to improve on areas that have been made apparent, but one cannot say that we didn't try. Another may argue: Well, what if they somehow managed to escape the cops during their integrity testing? Well, you can't have both, pick one: Do away with potential or allow it—either way, you can't please everyone. But i believe this system to be incredibly just and fair. I also see room for improvement, but it is up to others to decide if it really requires improvement.

To me, war can only be used in reaction to an invasion, and all hostilities must cease when the enemy surrenders or ceases to attack. This way promotes the least amount of lost lives.
Indeed.

Who said arrogance and stubborness are bad things? To me, they're relative. If you defend something bad, you're stubborn, if you defend something good, you're stalwart. Bah, bollocks.
:laugh: :p However, one cannot just say that they cannot be bad things, as many things depend on the intentions.

Which is why I fight for balance. Balance is the ultimate good, for which it is the place where everything has its place, everything fits and there is no excess. Too bad it's only an ideal.
I guess that would depend on what kind of balance you're fighting for. For do we really want a balance between good and evil? Where would the statement "Good triumphs over evil" be if such a balance existed?

I think it might be possible for one people to make a great change, should the person have the necessary personality and the necessary happenings around him/her in order to trigger such change. Martin Luther King, Mother Theresa of Calcuta, Joan of Arc, etc.
Yes, but i was assuming the role of an INTJ. I agree with the profile that says an INTJ does not normally take a leadership role unless the one currently in "power" fails to do their "job." And i'm not entirely certain on whether the people you mention are INTJs.

Problem is, you're on the dangerous slippery slope of crushing others to accomplish your goals.
Looking at my statement, the only flaw i can see is in how a person tries to gain their integrity. If one works behind the scenes ruining someone else's reputation just for the sake of increasing their own integrity, then yes, that is completely wrong. Other than this, i am uncertain what you mean.

A blind man knows light exists. That's where the whole thing crumbles. He has to be a fool or a madman in order not to believe what everyone else says.
Ah, yes, you're right! I knowingly took up the assumption that the blind man never experienced light (i.e. the heat it gives off) and has never heard about light. I should have taken into consideration word of mouth or the sense of touch.

INTJoe

01-10-2008, 09:59 AM

Paul you said SHOW compassion, don't just HAVE it.

But this doesn't align with your agreement that saying 'no' when someone wants to hear 'yes' IS actually having more compassion, even though, on the surface, you aren't showing it.

So, sometimes showing outward compassion would actually make the world worse.

gallihand

01-10-2008, 11:02 AM

He has to be a fool or a madman in order not to believe what everyone else says.

The world is flat. [/sarcasm]

Danisty

01-10-2008, 01:25 PM

Apologies if I sounded too harsh, but Nihilists and Moral Relativists annoy me to no end. If nothing is objective, nothing can be meassured, and nothing has a purpose, then why don't you take a gun and remove yourself from that horrible existence? You'll be doing a favour to yourself and to all of us who are tired of your depressing banter.But what you're describing is just nihilism. I'm not like that at all and I consider myself a relativist. I have a set of morals I feel strongly about and I follow as exactly as possible. I just don't pretend to know whether those morals are better than anyone else's. The only thing I can know is that they are better for me. I'm pretty sure other morals are better for other people.

Paul V

01-10-2008, 06:45 PM

I agree with all of this without it contradicting my previous statements. But i have something to say concerning "attempting": Attempting implies that they have not yet killed anyone, but what about those that have killed?—this is what i meant by the guilty. Although this would basically start a "should we kill murderers?" debate, i feel that it would be improper to say that it is okay to kill those that are attempting to kill others but not those that have killed others. Many have argued potential—what about the potential of change? They've also argued: Well, what if they're innocent? I considered their questions, and have come up with a way to improve the current death penalty system, which takes its stand in the middle of it all.

To me, one should not kill murderers, for the act of killing someone who is attempting to kill someone is ONLY to stop them. Killing should be only as a last resort to save someone else's life.

The system is basically this: If a person is given the death penalty, there will be a specific time period to prove their innocence after their judgment. The person will spend 10 years in prison. After the ten years are up, their case is to be re-opened. If found guilty, they are to return back to jail. They are then asked if they are willing to repent and change. If they say "yes," they'll be released to test their potential. They will, however, be greatly monitored (tapped phones, van at the corner of their home, etc...) for 5 years. If they maintain their integrity, then after those 5 years have passed, they will be placed on house arrest. If they maintain their integrity for 10 years, they will be taken off of house arrest and be placed on an even lesser form of monitoring (like a call every now and then, or whatever else they have...). If they fail to maintain their integrity, they are placed back in jail. If they are placed back in jail, they will have to wait another ten years. After the ten years, their case will be re-opened. In this case they may choose to argue for their integrity loss. If found guilty, they return to jail. If they've argued well for their integrity loss, they will be given another chance to prove their potential. The same monitoring efforts as the previous one will take affect here. If they lose their integrity, back to jail. Again, they are to wait 10 years. There case will be re-opened again after the 10 years. If found guilty, then the death penalty.

Wow. Too complicated when we can simply keep them locked up until they die of natural causes. Or implement that system, but instead of the death penalty, then no more chances to change.

I say every ten years, because Science is said to advance every ten years. People have been known to be found innocent thanks to technological advancement. One may argue: Well, what if they are found innocent after their thirty(+) years? Of course, we can only say sorry and that we'll try to improve on areas that have been made apparent, but one cannot say that we didn't try. Another may argue: Well, what if they somehow managed to escape the cops during their integrity testing? Well, you can't have both, pick one: Do away with potential or allow it—either way, you can't please everyone. But i believe this system to be incredibly just and fair. I also see room for improvement, but it is up to others to decide if it really requires improvement.

To me, the only improvement it needs is the removal of the death penalty. Religion aside, who do you think you are to take away someone's life? You might say "But I have a good reason! Justice!", who are we to tell which reasons are fair and which aren't? How would you feel if you someone took your life because he decided to play judge, jury and executioner on you? And how would you feel if you went through a seemingly fair trial, only to realise it has been cleverly manipulated by your enemies? Nothing that can be proven, just good ol' fashioned charismatic manipulation. I believe taking someone's life when it's not for preventing immediate death is simply arrogant and haughty. Who do we think we are, mankind's saviours, removing the filth from the gene pool before they can do more harm?

Indeed.

:)

:laugh: :p However, one cannot just say that they cannot be bad things, as many things depend on the intentions.

Precisely. Which is why I think they're bollocks.

I guess that would depend on what kind of balance you're fighting for. For do we really want a balance between good and evil? Where would the statement "Good triumphs over evil" be if such a balance existed?

To me, that saying is only a tool used for good to give itself hope, and instill fear in those who are evil. They know that evil is way ahead than good, and people in general do more evil deeds than good ones. Therefore, their only hope for balance is counterweight all that by being ultimately victorious. True, it will not undo evil's harm, but it will provide enough comfort to compensate it. And no, to me, balance is more important than good or evil. As I've said before, the only two reasons I'm helping good are because Evil is being unfairly favored, and because it comes as a natural reaction for me. Though I believe that if things were balanced, I'd only aid good if I knew someone else was aiding evil. Otherwise, I'd remain neutral.

Yes, but i was assuming the role of an INTJ. I agree with the profile that says an INTJ does not normally take a leadership role unless the one currently in "power" fails to do their "job." And i'm not entirely certain on whether the people you mention are INTJs.

Mother Theresa was an INFJ. I suppose an INTJ with a strong sense of compassion would fit her role just fine. And I truly believe people will need saviours in the future. But not a sole figure, but a group of people, working together and proving to mankind that the only hope for their salvation is union. To me, that's the main problem we have at the moment, and the one that most desperately requires a hero.

Looking at my statement, the only flaw i can see is in how a person tries to gain their integrity. If one works behind the scenes ruining someone else's reputation just for the sake of increasing their own integrity, then yes, that is completely wrong. Other than this, i am uncertain what you mean.

You are correct, that's what I meant. In that case, it would be all about the intentions, and how far you're willing to go to fulfill your goals.

Ah, yes, you're right! I knowingly took up the assumption that the blind man never experienced light (i.e. the heat it gives off) and has never heard about light. I should have taken into consideration word of mouth or the sense of touch.

Even if he cannot feel it, he has to believe what everyone else tells him to (I mean, things that all who surround him agree on), whether they are truths or lies. If he cannot ascertain anything by himself, he must trust those with sight to guide him. A terrible position to be in, yes, but the only logical solution left.

Paul you said SHOW compassion, don't just HAVE it.

But this doesn't align with your agreement that saying 'no' when someone wants to hear 'yes' IS actually having more compassion, even though, on the surface, you aren't showing it.

So, sometimes showing outward compassion would actually make the world worse.

It depends on your definition of compassion. To me, I might be truly compassive about someone, and attempt to place myself in their shoes and share their misfortune, providing all the comfort I'm able to offer, but if helping them will harm others, I will not do it.

For example, in the book I'm writing, my character has five other friends (the six are the main characters of the book), and three of them are involved in a love triangle that lasts a long time. Eventually, the guy talks to one of the girls and they both agree that he should pick the other one. When he's gone, my character talks to the woman left, and she states that she doesn't want my character's compassion. He tells her that compassion is the only thing that can heal her wounds, and she should take it, for it is illogical to want to suffer. He knows that all he can do is be there for her, because giving her what she wants will harm the other girl, and possibly the guy too. Do you understand what I'm saying, or am I being too confusing?

Paul V

01-10-2008, 06:46 PM

The world is flat. [/sarcasm]

If everyone said that to him, then he would have to believe them until he can prove otherwise, because it's illogical not to do so.

But what you're describing is just nihilism. I'm not like that at all and I consider myself a relativist. I have a set of morals I feel strongly about and I follow as exactly as possible. I just don't pretend to know whether those morals are better than anyone else's. The only thing I can know is that they are better for me. I'm pretty sure other morals are better for other people.

From Wikipedia: "In philosophy, moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. Moral relativists hold that no universal standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth; moral subjectivism is thus the opposite of moral absolutism. Relativistic positions often see moral values as applicable only within certain cultural boundaries (cultural relativism) or in the context of individual preferences (moral subjectivism). An extreme relativist position might suggest that judging the moral or ethical judgments or acts of another person or group has no meaning, though most relativists propound a more limited version of the theory."

While that is what I originally thought, I found this as well:

"Some moral relativists — for example, the existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre — hold that a personal and subjective moral core lies or ought to lie at the base of individuals' moral acts. In this view public morality reflects social convention, and only personal, subjective morality expresses true authenticity."

This is what you said, but bear in mind that it says "some", which means it's not the default position for moral relativists.

Also, you should know that in order for society to function, and for mankind to survive, there must be made an agreement between those that seek to aid each other, and compromises must be made as well. Clear definitions of right and wrong must be attained, and they must be held sacrosanct at all times. Otherwise, we have what we have now. Inefficiency and anarchy.

Oh, and I also found this interesting bit:

"In popular culture people often describe themselves as "morally relativist," meaning that they are accepting of other people's values and agree that there is no one "right" way of doing some things. However, this actually has little to do with the philosophical idea of relativism; relativism does not necessarily imply tolerance, just as moral objectivism does not imply intolerance. These people's moral outlook can be explained from both theoretical frameworks."

truefusion

01-10-2008, 10:42 PM

To me, one should not kill murderers, for the act of killing someone who is attempting to kill someone is ONLY to stop them. Killing should be only as a last resort to save someone else's life.
Heh. That's the equivalent of my argument. I don't see a difference between mine and yours.

...we can simply keep them locked up until they die of natural causes.
This argument has been used before. However, jail has been known to give mental side effects to people. And this also increases the chance of overpopulating the prison; not to say that overpopulation should be a reason for doing away with prisoners. There are advantages and disadvatanges to both sides, though; however, it's all about which one outweighs the other.

Or implement that system, but instead of the death penalty, then no more chances to change.
Possible. However, some people die in jail before they are even executed by the state.

[...] [1:1]Religion aside, who do you think you are to take away someone's life? [1:2]You might say "But I have a good reason! Justice!", who are we to tell which reasons are fair and which aren't? [2:1]How would you feel if you someone took your life because he decided to play judge, jury and executioner on you? [2:2]And how would you feel if you went through a seemingly fair trial, only to realise it has been cleverly manipulated by your enemies? Nothing that can be proven, just good ol' fashioned charismatic manipulation. [3]I believe taking someone's life when it's not for preventing immediate death is simply arrogant and haughty. [4]Who do we think we are, mankind's saviours, removing the filth from the gene pool before they can do more harm?
[1:1]I could use this argument, too. But that would render my previous arguments inconsistent and contradictory.

[1:2]I might. But the second half of the argument can be turned against you as well.

[2:1]I would have to assume they're a murderer, because (emphasis by me) "they decided to play judge, jury and executioner on" me. But how would i feel about it? Well, assuming they didn't make their role clear to me before my death: I would feel nothing; the dead feel nothing. However, anyone that is attached to me would be sad that i'm gone and angry at the one who killed me. But, of course, that's assuming someone is attached to me. But if no one is attached to me, then perhaps someone got away with murder. If they did make their role apparent to me, then i do believe it's perfectly fair for me to defend myself.

[2:2]I would be thinking, "Perhaps i should have hired a better lawyer." Feeling: I don't know; things don't really affect me much. It only affects me when i ponder on it for a long time. But is the "religion aside" thing still in effect here? :p

[3]Refer to what i have labeled section 1 in your quote. :p

[4]I don't know who we think we are, but it's interesting that you mention (emphasis by me) "before they can do more harm," which can only be directed towards my beliefs. But even in your beliefs, you are playing the role as "savior;" only difference being that you are preventing harm, when i am preventing further harm.

... As I've said before, the only two reasons I'm helping good are because Evil is being unfairly favored, and because it comes as a natural reaction for me. Though I believe that if things were balanced, I'd only aid good if I knew someone else was aiding evil. Otherwise, I'd remain neutral.
I'm sorry, i see a paradox. You say that balance is more important than one being over the other. But you also say that you would aid good if there was someone aiding evil—regardless of balance. But even if good and evil were equally balanced, it is obvious that one is aiding evil, or else good would outweigh evil to the point where evil is non-existent. Therefore, as it is, you would never stop aiding good—even if evil is begging for mercy, in a sense, for someone will always be aiding evil.

Mother Theresa was an INFJ. I suppose an INTJ with a strong sense of compassion would fit her role just fine. And I truly believe people will need saviours in the future. But not a sole figure, but a group of people, working together and proving to mankind that the only hope for their salvation is union. To me, that's the main problem we have at the moment, and the one that most desperately requires a hero.
I thought she was a feeling type. But the rest of your statement, you remind me of the Bahai (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.á'í_Faith) religion. Ever heard of it? Are you part of it?

Even if he cannot feel it, he has to believe what everyone else tells him to (I mean, things that all who surround him agree on), whether they are truths or lies. If he cannot ascertain anything by himself, he must trust those with sight to guide him. A terrible position to be in, yes, but the only logical solution left.
Even worse would be no hearing along with no touch and sight. What else would they have left? Taste and smell. But taste and smell are nothing compared to sight, hearing and touch; or at least to me they aren't.

Paul V

01-10-2008, 11:02 PM

Heh. That's the equivalent of my argument. I don't see a difference between mine and yours.

Huh?

This argument has been used before. However, jail has been known to give mental side effects to people. And this also increases the chance of overpopulating the prison; not to say that overpopulation should be a reason for doing away with prisoners. There are advantages and disadvatanges to both sides, though; however, it's all about which one outweighs the other.

Overpopulation can be overcome with education. Educate the masses and they will be less inclined to breed like rabbits, reversing the overpopulation effect and allowing you to use that extra space for prisioners.

Possible. However, some people die in jail before they are even executed by the state.

If the state has nothing to do with it, then that's just fine.

[1:1]I could use this argument, too. But that would render my previous arguments inconsistent and contradictory.

Okay...

[1:2]I might. But the second half of the argument can be turned against you as well.

How so?

[2:1]I would have to assume they're a murderer, because (emphasis by me) "they decided to play judge, jury and executioner on" me. But how would i feel about it? Well, assuming they didn't make their role clear to me before my death: I would feel nothing; the dead feel nothing. However, anyone that is attached to me would be sad that i'm gone and angry at the one who killed me. But, of course, that's assuming someone is attached to me. But if no one is attached to me, then perhaps someone got away with murder. If they did make their role apparent to me, then i do believe it's perfectly fair for me to defend myself.

Circumventing the real question...

[2:2]I would be thinking, "Perhaps i should have hired a better lawyer." Feeling: I don't know; things don't really affect me much. It only affects me when i ponder on it for a long time. But is the "religion aside" thing still in effect here? :p

Yes. And stop dodging the question. It would be unfair and you know it. :P

[3]Refer to what i have labeled section 1 in your quote. :p

*rolls eyes*

[4]I don't know who we think we are, but it's interesting that you mention (emphasis by me) "before they can do more harm," which can only be directed towards my beliefs. But even in your beliefs, you are playing the role as "savior;" only difference being that you are preventing harm, when i am preventing further harm.

I was mockingly speaking on behalf of those who support the death penalty, that is not what I really think. And even if I kill someone that was about to kill someone else, I'll still feel remorse. One must always feel sorry for the those he/she kills, for they might have been good people who were pushed towards evil out of bad luck and being harmed too much. They could've been good if their circumstances would've been different.

I'm sorry, i see a paradox. You say that balance is more important than one being over the other. But you also say that you would aid good if there was someone aiding evil—regardless of balance. But even if good and evil were equally balanced, it is obvious that one is aiding evil, or else good would outweigh evil to the point where evil is non-existent. Therefore, as it is, you would never stop aiding good—even if evil is begging for mercy, in a sense, for someone will always be aiding evil.

Precisely. There can never be balance, and I cannot stop fighting for good. It's a self-maintaining cycle that keeps favoring evil every time, which causes people to aid good, which causes evil to seek aid, which unbalances the whole thing, etc.

I thought she was a feeling type. But the rest of your statement, you remind me of the Bahai (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.á'í_Faith) religion. Ever heard of it? Are you part of it?

She was a feeling type. INFJ are feelers, remember?

Never heard of that religion before in my life. Sounds about right, except I don't believe in God. If he exists, he's a sadistic and bored old man with nothing to do with his eternal life. And also, I loath religions that continuously emphasise mankind's connection with God. Every religion says that men must strive to be connected to God, seek communing with Him and all that crap. It gets tiresome reading the same thing over and over again.

Even worse would be no hearing along with no touch and sight. What else would they have left? Taste and smell. But taste and smell are nothing compared to sight, hearing and touch; or at least to me they aren't.

True, but still doesn't change what I say. Losing one sense renders you crippled, and puts you into the hands of other human beings. May they have mercy on your poor, poor soul.

Danisty

01-11-2008, 01:03 AM

If everyone said that to him, then he would have to believe them until he can prove otherwise, because it's illogical not to do so.

From Wikipedia: "In philosophy, moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. Moral relativists hold that no universal standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth; moral subjectivism is thus the opposite of moral absolutism. Relativistic positions often see moral values as applicable only within certain cultural boundaries (cultural relativism) or in the context of individual preferences (moral subjectivism). An extreme relativist position might suggest that judging the moral or ethical judgments or acts of another person or group has no meaning, though most relativists propound a more limited version of the theory."

While that is what I originally thought, I found this as well:

"Some moral relativists — for example, the existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre — hold that a personal and subjective moral core lies or ought to lie at the base of individuals' moral acts. In this view public morality reflects social convention, and only personal, subjective morality expresses true authenticity."

This is what you said, but bear in mind that it says "some", which means it's not the default position for moral relativists.

Also, you should know that in order for society to function, and for mankind to survive, there must be made an agreement between those that seek to aid each other, and compromises must be made as well. Clear definitions of right and wrong must be attained, and they must be held sacrosanct at all times. Otherwise, we have what we have now. Inefficiency and anarchy.

Oh, and I also found this interesting bit:

"In popular culture people often describe themselves as "morally relativist," meaning that they are accepting of other people's values and agree that there is no one "right" way of doing some things. However, this actually has little to do with the philosophical idea of relativism; relativism does not necessarily imply tolerance, just as moral objectivism does not imply intolerance. These people's moral outlook can be explained from both theoretical frameworks."The problem comes in where you say life has no purpose and that it's a horrible, depressing existence.

jdc127

01-12-2008, 11:21 AM

>>From Wikipedia: "In philosophy, moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. Moral relativists hold that no universal standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth; moral subjectivism is thus the opposite of moral absolutism. Relativistic positions often see moral values as applicable only within certain cultural boundaries (cultural relativism) or in the context of individual preferences (moral subjectivism). An extreme relativist position might suggest that judging the moral or ethical judgments or acts of another person or group has no meaning, though most relativists propound a more limited version of the theory."

I do not consider myself extreme, nor do I hold that we can arrive at no conception of good or evil.

>>Also, you should know that in order for society to function, and for mankind to survive, there must be made an agreement between those that seek to aid each other, and compromises must be made as well. Clear definitions of right and wrong must be attained, and they must be held sacrosanct at all times. Otherwise, we have what we have now. Inefficiency and anarchy.

Yes, well this is assuming that people hold rational and knowledgable beliefs, and furthur that they will be able to act rationally before during and after these compromises are met.

>>"In popular culture people often describe themselves as "morally relativist," meaning that they are accepting of other people's values and agree that there is no one "right" way of doing some things. However, this actually has little to do with the philosophical idea of relativism; relativism does not necessarily imply tolerance, just as moral objectivism does not imply intolerance. These people's moral outlook can be explained from both theoretical frameworks."[/QUOTE]

TO reiterate, I do not believe that we can only stand by while another belief system expresses or acts on its values and principles, nor do I think we can make no ethical assessment of these actions. The point is; our views are relative to our experience regardless of how objective we may think we are. I hold that the vast majority of humanity acts from egocentric and selfish motivations. This is a framework for action and sets the boundaries for defining right androng, good and evil. When I say that we need to transcend our current notions of good/evil, I mean that until a fundamental shift occurs, until humanity is able to operate from a more "enlightened" perspective, it matters not whether we agree on right or wrong. Within this framework, we stagnate, and evils (and goods) perpetuate themselves through our evolutionary inertia.

What is right and wrong today differs greatly from what was held right and wrong 2000 years ago because we were operating from within an entirely different framework. THose views are RELATIVE to our current views, and everything is relative to something else even within our own system. There are no absolute or indelible truths that exist within the relative frameworks of humanity's consciousness.

Seeing the relative nature of being enables us to better make decisions and come to temporary truces and agreements with each other. Holding on to "absolute truth" with each opposing side claiming that they are being objective and rational only pepetuates selfish action and ethical stagnation.

The Many

01-12-2008, 09:28 PM

Sigh. You're going to find my views really different from yours. I just hope you're not like everyone else and start flaming me and calling me a hypocrit just for being different. War (and the killing that derives from it) is only not-wrong when it is used to defend yourself from an army who is actively invading your land, and killing your people. In any other event (such as, when the army surrendered), it is wrong.

I will not detail my moral philosophy, for it'd take more than the 9000 characters limit of this post, so I will just answer what you asked me: It is a self-made system that is based on logic, feelings, philosophy and history.

You are a Relative Moralist. You believe that there's no such thing as objective morality, and that all situations are subjective. That puts you right at the edge of the slippery slope called Nihilism, in which nothing matters, since nothing has a purpose. If all moral actions are subjective, then no objective morality can be defined, which means that laws cannot be based on morality, which causes 99% of the current laws to crumble, leading to chaos and anarchism. No, I do not adhere to that philosophical belief. And yes, morality can be objective. There is a principle called inter-subjectivity, which was developed for science, in which it is stated that with enough people agreeing on a certain subjective matter, an objective matter arises from the consensus.

I replied. Satisfied?

Wrong. I am a subjectivist, not a relativist (for instance I believe that someone who I don't agree with may be criticized, which a true relativist doesn't believe), but just as you say going deeper in this issue will take more time and patience than I currently have. I do however have a few things to mention here - first of all the fact that laws have no objective basis does not make them redundant. I think we all can quite happily agree on that certain legal principles are worth installing, even though they have no metaphysical basis. I mean, just since there is no objective value in being nice towards others doesn't mean there is no subjective value in such a thing.

Secondly, the fact that many people agree on an issue doesn't make it objectively true. I will however not reply to any possible replies to this post, since this debate is frankly not worth continuing.

truefusion

01-13-2008, 07:53 AM

Huh?
In your statement you said, "one should not kill murderers, for the act of killing someone who is attempting to kill someone is ONLY to stop them"—this is to say that we (as in those who support the death penalty) aren't trying to stop them; how are we not trying to stop them? Furthermore, you mention, "Killing should be only as a last resort to save someone else's life."—not everyone gets sentenced to death row, and how are we (same as the previous one) not saving someone else's life? Those that get placed on death row are those who have killed many people. Ever heard of "25 years to life"? Life here does not mean putting them to death. And 25 years to life is when someone kills someone. Even in my modified system, killing them was after many efforts of trying to give them a chance; although they have already previously killed many. Do you see what i mean, now, when i say, "I don't see a difference between mine and yours"?

Overpopulation can be overcome with education. Educate the masses and they will be less inclined to breed like rabbits, reversing the overpopulation effect and allowing you to use that extra space for prisioners.
The "overpopulation" mentioned here is for the over-all population. The "overpopulation" i mentioned in my statement is limited to the prison itself. But to entertain your idea: Less people in the world means less prisoners, so there would be no need to use this "extra" space for prisoners. Also, i'm quite sure there are people out there that are educating people, but it is obviously not working.

If the state has nothing to do with it, then that's just fine.
How so? There's more than one way to die in jail than natural causes. Prisoners are fully capable of getting into fights. If the state, here, does nothing about it, then obviously someone is going to die or be badly hurt. Prisoners are more than likely to join in the fight, watch the fight, or support the fight. Still just fine?

How so?
You rolled your eyes at it. :p

Circumventing the real question...
Looking at my response, i don't see how i am circumventing the real question. I answered realistically: Nothing, for i am dead—it is not me that any longer feels. If i am not dead, then what do others have to worry about? Perhaps i should be asking, what did you want me to answer you with? For remember, you asked me; all answers are therefore limited to me. You don't have to like my answer, but don't accuse me in hopes of getting the answer that you want. And if you are going to accuse, then point out the question i failed to answer—don't imply it.

Yes. And stop dodging the question. It would be unfair and you know it. :P
To explain my answer more deeply: If i don't contemplate on things, then no matter what i believe in, i won't feel regret. If i did contemplate on these things, i would regret finishing previous projects—assuming no one is attached to me. If someone was attached to me, then all my hope is on them, huh? Since you mention that i realized that the trial "has been cleverly manipulated by [my] enemies," that implies that i am still alive. And since i realized it, being an INTJ—one that normally critically examines things—i could see where and inform the one that is attached to me about it; this is where all my hope is on them. If no one is attached to me, then my only hope, if i were to contemplate on the future, is for my death to be quick and painless. What's the point in fighting for a lost cause?

But to add to this, you do realize the defendant is fully capable of manipulating the trail as well.

[1]I was mockingly speaking on behalf of those who support the death penalty, that is not what I really think. [2]And even if I kill someone that was about to kill someone else, I'll still feel remorse. [3]One must always feel sorry for the those he/she kills, for they might have been good people who were pushed towards evil out of bad luck and being harmed too much. [4]They could've been good if their circumstances would've been different.
[1]Then leave it out.

[2]I do not believe that you would kill someone if you knew that you would regret it later. It is normal for people to not do something if there is no benefit from it.

[3]In my book, a good person stops becoming good when they do wrong. And in my book, good people know what is wrong, and therefore do not allow themselves to do wrong.

[4]This implies that they were never good to begin with, for they "could have."

[1]She was a feeling type. INFJ are feelers, remember?

[...] [2]If he exists, he's a sadistic and bored old man with nothing to do with his eternal life. [...] [3:1]Every religion says that men must strive to be connected to God, seek communing with Him and all that crap. [3:2]It gets tiresome reading the same thing over and over again.
[1]By "i thought she was a feeling type," i did not mean it to question you; i was agreeing. I did not mean it to be taken as, "I thought she was a feeling type, no?" But this topic is about INTJs, so all other types are irrelevant; not to say that non-INTJs can't join in the topic, it just has to be relevant to INTJs.

[2]That is out of line and uncalled for. And i can never understand why people call Him an "old [(bearded)] man" when He is immortal and not subject to time; it doesn't make sense to me.

[3:1]You can't say "every religion" here, implying a fact; [3:2]for if they were all the same, then there would be unity.

True, but still doesn't change what I say.
And it was not intended to change what you said. Don't consider everything i say to be a contradiction to you.

Paul V

01-16-2008, 06:16 PM

The problem comes in where you say life has no purpose and that it's a horrible, depressing existence.

I didn't say that. I said that thinking that life has no purpose is a horrible, depressing existence.

>>From Wikipedia: "In philosophy, moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. Moral relativists hold that no universal standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth; moral subjectivism is thus the opposite of moral absolutism. Relativistic positions often see moral values as applicable only within certain cultural boundaries (cultural relativism) or in the context of individual preferences (moral subjectivism). An extreme relativist position might suggest that judging the moral or ethical judgments or acts of another person or group has no meaning, though most relativists propound a more limited version of the theory."

I do not consider myself extreme, nor do I hold that we can arrive at no conception of good or evil.

Then how you determine whether something is right or wrong?

>>Also, you should know that in order for society to function, and for mankind to survive, there must be made an agreement between those that seek to aid each other, and compromises must be made as well. Clear definitions of right and wrong must be attained, and they must be held sacrosanct at all times. Otherwise, we have what we have now. Inefficiency and anarchy.

Yes, well this is assuming that people hold rational and knowledgable beliefs, and furthur that they will be able to act rationally before during and after these compromises are met.

Any other option is either unethical or eventually fruitless.

>>"In popular culture people often describe themselves as "morally relativist," meaning that they are accepting of other people's values and agree that there is no one "right" way of doing some things. However, this actually has little to do with the philosophical idea of relativism; relativism does not necessarily imply tolerance, just as moral objectivism does not imply intolerance. These people's moral outlook can be explained from both theoretical frameworks."

TO reiterate, I do not believe that we can only stand by while another belief system expresses or acts on its values and principles, nor do I think we can make no ethical assessment of these actions. The point is; our views are relative to our experience regardless of how objective we may think we are. I hold that the vast majority of humanity acts from egocentric and selfish motivations. This is a framework for action and sets the boundaries for defining right androng, good and evil. When I say that we need to transcend our current notions of good/evil, I mean that until a fundamental shift occurs, until humanity is able to operate from a more "enlightened" perspective, it matters not whether we agree on right or wrong. Within this framework, we stagnate, and evils (and goods) perpetuate themselves through our evolutionary inertia.

I must agree, though you seem pessimistic, if not outright fatalistic. I believe the question is: What can we do to create such a change?

What is right and wrong today differs greatly from what was held right and wrong 2000 years ago because we were operating from within an entirely different framework. THose views are RELATIVE to our current views, and everything is relative to something else even within our own system. There are no absolute or indelible truths that exist within the relative frameworks of humanity's consciousness.

Spoken like a true Moral Relativist. I agree with you, but I also understand that people need to make compromises and concessions in order to be able to successfully work together in a productive society (and that is essential for mankind's survival).

Seeing the relative nature of being enables us to better make decisions and come to temporary truces and agreements with each other. Holding on to "absolute truth" with each opposing side claiming that they are being objective and rational only pepetuates selfish action and ethical stagnation.

I agree, but I also know that attempting to do anything else puts you in a really dangerous slippery slope, where you (or others) can justify immoral acts. It's something that must be thought carefully and must be done thoroughly.

Wrong. I am a subjectivist, not a relativist (for instance I believe that someone who I don't agree with may be criticized, which a true relativist doesn't believe), but just as you say going deeper in this issue will take more time and patience than I currently have. I do however have a few things to mention here - first of all the fact that laws have no objective basis does not make them redundant. I think we all can quite happily agree on that certain legal principles are worth installing, even though they have no metaphysical basis. I mean, just since there is no objective value in being nice towards others doesn't mean there is no subjective value in such a thing.

On what grounds can you criticise someone who doesn't agree with you, if they are as subjective as you are? They are not any more right than you are, under your point of view. I agree, Laws should be witheld and created from the compromising of the ethics of a group of people, and they must serve the people, protecting them and aiding them.

And I agree with your subjective analysis, but you have to understand that legality and morality are two very different things. Being nice to someone is something moral, while not harming someone is both immoral and illegal.

Secondly, the fact that many people agree on an issue doesn't make it objectively true. I will however not reply to any possible replies to this post, since this debate is frankly not worth continuing.

It doesn't, but it makes it inter-subjective, as I've explained before. It's up to you whether to continue debating or not, but I recommend you to keep on going. Perhaps we might extract wisdom from this.

Paul V

01-16-2008, 06:17 PM

In your statement you said, "one should not kill murderers, for the act of killing someone who is attempting to kill someone is ONLY to stop them"—this is to say that we (as in those who support the death penalty) aren't trying to stop them; how are we not trying to stop them? Furthermore, you mention, "Killing should be only as a last resort to save someone else's life."—not everyone gets sentenced to death row, and how are we (same as the previous one) not saving someone else's life? Those that get placed on death row are those who have killed many people. Ever heard of "25 years to life"? Life here does not mean putting them to death. And 25 years to life is when someone kills someone. Even in my modified system, killing them was after many efforts of trying to give them a chance; although they have already previously killed many. Do you see what i mean, now, when i say, "I don't see a difference between mine and yours"?

Because they are not actively endangering nobody's life when they are in jail. Killing somebody that isn't about to kill someone else is not justified.

What you don't seem to understand (you and everyone else that supports the death penalty) is that you cannot be 100% sure that someone will kill again. You claim to be saving people's lives (future lives), but you are not 100% sure. The killer might die in an accident tomorrow, or become paraplexic, comatose or braindead. Or he/she might reform. You cannot know for sure whether someone will kill again, not even mentally ill people (for the reasons I've stated above). And the worst part is that keeping someone imprisioned forever achieves the same results. With enough security, they will not be able to harm anyone but themselves (and if they kill themselves, then they're still becoming unable to harm anyone else in the future).

No, I still don't see where our systems are alike.

The "overpopulation" mentioned here is for the over-all population. The "overpopulation" i mentioned in my statement is limited to the prison itself. But to entertain your idea: Less people in the world means less prisoners, so there would be no need to use this "extra" space for prisoners. Also, i'm quite sure there are people out there that are educating people, but it is obviously not working.

You were right up to where you said "it is obviously not working". You are wrong. It's not that it isn't working, it's that there isn't enough. It's like trying to put out a housefire with a garden hose. It is too little, and it will not work. But it's the best we can do for now, while we wait for more water to come in our aid.

How so? There's more than one way to die in jail than natural causes. Prisoners are fully capable of getting into fights. If the state, here, does nothing about it, then obviously someone is going to die or be badly hurt. Prisoners are more than likely to join in the fight, watch the fight, or support the fight. Still just fine?

Obviously, jail guards are more than simple decorations. If a prisioner attacks another prisioner, then they have a duty to intervene and separate them. If an inmate kills another inmate, then the state should try him for murder, just as if he/she would have killed someone else outside the prision.

You rolled your eyes at it. :p

Lol?

Looking at my response, i don't see how i am circumventing the real question. I answered realistically: Nothing, for i am dead—it is not me that any longer feels. If i am not dead, then what do others have to worry about? Perhaps i should be asking, what did you want me to answer you with? For remember, you asked me; all answers are therefore limited to me. You don't have to like my answer, but don't accuse me in hopes of getting the answer that you want. And if you are going to accuse, then point out the question i failed to answer—don't imply it.

You might have missed it, or I might have taken it for granted, but I was refering to the moments before the event happens, when you realise the person's intentions. I was trying to make an analogy, but it obviously failed.

To explain my answer more deeply: If i don't contemplate on things, then no matter what i believe in, i won't feel regret. If i did contemplate on these things, i would regret finishing previous projects—assuming no one is attached to me. If someone was attached to me, then all my hope is on them, huh? Since you mention that i realized that the trial "has been cleverly manipulated by [my] enemies," that implies that i am still alive. And since i realized it, being an INTJ—one that normally critically examines things—i could see where and inform the one that is attached to me about it; this is where all my hope is on them. If no one is attached to me, then my only hope, if i were to contemplate on the future, is for my death to be quick and painless. What's the point in fighting for a lost cause?

Ah, here is where we disagree on a philosophical level. I believe one must always fight for one's own preservation, because our life is all we really have, and everything else emerges from it. But I understand your choice.

But to add to this, you do realize the defendant is fully capable of manipulating the trail as well.

True, but then again, he might lose.

[1]Then leave it out.

Why?

[2]I do not believe that you would kill someone if you knew that you would regret it later. It is normal for people to not do something if there is no benefit from it.

Can't I defend my own life, and still regret that things had turned out that way?

[3]In my book, a good person stops becoming good when they do wrong. And in my book, good people know what is wrong, and therefore do not allow themselves to do wrong.

I do not believe that people are born good or evil, for that eliminates the concept of free will. I believe that people are born neutral, with inclinations towards good, evil or neither, and that they are able to do both equally, though they will tend to act towards the way they are inclined. Someone might have been good, then driven to insanity by someone else, or might have been tricked, or their emotions might have clouded their judgment. Not everyone is logical and has a perfect willpower and self-control.

[4]This implies that they were never good to begin with, for they "could have."

Read what I said above.

[1]By "i thought she was a feeling type," i did not mean it to question you; i was agreeing. I did not mean it to be taken as, "I thought she was a feeling type, no?" But this topic is about INTJs, so all other types are irrelevant; not to say that non-INTJs can't join in the topic, it just has to be relevant to INTJs.

My mistake.

[2]That is out of line and uncalled for. And i can never understand why people call Him an "old [(bearded)] man" when He is immortal and not subject to time; it doesn't make sense to me.

It was sarcasm? It wasn't necessary for you to take it literally? Sorry for offending you, but I thought you'd recognise the difference between a real attack and a sarcastic remark with no ill intentions.

[3:1]You can't say "every religion" here, implying a fact; [3:2]for if they were all the same, then there would be unity.

I specifically stated before "that I read" or "that I've read". I was refering to those religions.

And it was not intended to change what you said. Don't consider everything i say to be a contradiction to you.

I thought that was the purpose of a debate, to confront opposed views and try to extract wisdom from both?

jdc127

01-16-2008, 09:35 PM

I am enrolled in an advanced philosophy class, titled ethical theory (quite approprate for this discussion :)

I can now say that I don't hold to a ethical relativist view, and I can clarify for myself and others where I mistaking cultural relativism with ethical relativism.

One common assumption of folks that I also held was equating objective views with absolute views, which is incorrect.

Also, cultural relativism is in accordance with objectivism because it is a descriptive view, describing what is while ethical relativism is a normative view that goes a step further and posits from the differences no objective moral truths can be held (which I don't agree with now.)

The problem I see with natural law based objective theories is that it only addresses the needs of human being and not other irrational or rational beings. The other problem is that the indeterminancy of translation seems to some into play (a common etical critique of objectivism) when you consider a hypothetical race of beings from another planet with entirely different needs, different ways f acquiring those need and completley different symbols upon which culture language and worldview are based. In this extreme case of cultural relativism, how can even a utilitarian objectivist view reconcile with irreconcilable differences and/or ways of understanding and being?

What other genus of objectivism could deal with it without appealing to some absolute and/or supreme principle from which a more general set of valid truths could be derived? What would that/those principle(s) be? I can't think of any, but here I am not supporting relativism or absolutism; I just don't see how any of these view could be applicable in this extreme (but entirely plausible) situation.

Danisty

01-16-2008, 09:46 PM

I didn't say that. I said that thinking that life has no purpose is a horrible, depressing existence.

Apologies if I sounded too harsh, but Nihilists and Moral Relativists annoy me to no end. If nothing is objective, nothing can be meassured, and nothing has a purpose, then why don't you take a gun and remove yourself from that horrible existence? You'll be doing a favour to yourself and to all of us who are tired of your depressing banter.

Paul V

01-21-2008, 07:59 AM