# feeling doms and moral relativism: Is there a correlation?



## Brown bear (Jul 25, 2016)

diz said:


> I got a bit scared off of this thread by page 2 or 3, but was going to add that, between the 2, I would guess Fe-doms to be more relativistic than Fi-doms.


Agreed, also more selfish.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Brown bear said:


> I also disagree with this, because if for example, you only care about homelessness when it affects your loved ones (moral relativity), you are actually practicing amorality by only caring about world issues when they effect you/your loved ones.


How is it _amoral_? It's selective morality, sure, applied only to the ones this person values the most. But amoralism would be complete lack of morals, again, by definition "without moral quality". Amoral person (either by nature or by choice) would not have a moral principle of helping their loved ones any more so than helping anyone - because, by definition, they are _unaware_ of or _unaffected_ by moral questions to begin with.

Besides, you also completely leave out most philosophical, scientific and religious views of moral relativism, by only using everyday examples of people who make moral judgements that are relative to their situation and other people.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Brown bear said:


> I disagree, although this may be the case for you individually.


Defining the identity of one's group, culture, sub-culture and self through Otherness is very much a thing in sociology.

Here is another article, if you are interested: https://othersociologist.com/otherness-resources/



> Ideas of similarity and difference are central to the way in which we achieve a sense of identity and social belonging. Identities have some element of exclusivity. Just as when we formally join a club or an organisation, social membership depends upon fulfilling a set of criteria. It just so happens that such criteria are socially-constructed (that is, created by societies and social groups). As such ‘we’ cannot belong to any group unless ‘they’ (other people) do not belong to ‘our’ group. Sociologists set out to study how societies manage collective ideas about who gets to belong to ‘our group’ and which types of people are seen as different – the outsiders of society.


----------



## angelfish (Feb 17, 2011)

Brown bear said:


> I also disagree with this, because if for example, you only care about homelessness when it affects your loved ones (moral relativity), you are actually practicing amorality by only caring about world issues when they effect you/your loved ones.


I would contend, though, that I _do_ care - it makes me feel sadness and pain - to see homeless people, but still there is what I suspect may be a common INFP struggle: plenty of room for disparity between the depth and intensity of what I feel and the impact of what I do. It is not a disparity born out of not wanting to do something, but out of the challenge of balancing and distributing resources to successfully sustain myself in addition to effectively improving life for other people. 

The first problem I encounter is that there are so many more people I care about than resources I have to do something about it. I _have_ to provide myself with shelter, food, and transportation first before I can care for others, because I won't have any resources at all if I don't prioritize my own stability. And I just don't see any feasible way of addressing the suffering of millions of people without completely draining myself. An additional problem is that for a substantial percentage of the homeless population, the root of their homelessness is mental illness and/or substance issues - often both. So realistically my fiance and I could probably take two people into our apartment - it would be quite cramped but I think we would be ok - but just providing them with shelter and even food doesn't solve the more systemic problems that are making it challenging for them to sustain a "normal" life. Those are problems that can really only be tackled on a much greater level, unless I become their personal therapist, and I'm certainly not qualified for that, nor do I think I could do it sustainability while still maintaining an income. 

So one part of my personal solution to this is to try to gear the work I do towards social responsibility - I've worked in education, in human services, in caregiving, in healthcare, and in marketing for a company that has a substantial focus on environmentally responsible products. I also have made it a general rule of thumb that when I encounter homeless people, I offer them any food I may have on me, and always food gift cards when I have them. I rarely carry cash, but I've given it at times, too. But I'm human, still, and like to buy myself jewelry and dessert and music and things I don't really need. Even still, I don't think that makes me _apathetic_ to the cause of homeless people. 

All of this is to point out that I see moral apathy versus moral engagement on a different axis than moral relativity versus moral universality, and both of those on separate axes than moral inactivity versus moral activity. We could certain argue the merits and demerits of each, and certainly there is likely correlation between the scales - however, I think it is possible to have...

- Morally apathetic, universalist, inactive: lapsed Catholic
- Morally apathetic, universalist, active: lasped Catholic who still volunteers at soup kitchen
- Morally apathetic, relativist, inactive: Cersei Lannister
- Morally apathetic, relativist, active: Jamie Lannister
- Morally engaged, universalist, inactive: Kantian philosopher
- Morally engaged, universalist, active: many justices/judges
- Morally engaged, relativist, inactive: depressed idealist
- Morally engaged, relativist, active: many politicians


----------



## Brown bear (Jul 25, 2016)

angelfish said:


> I would contend, though, that I _do_ care - it makes me feel sadness and pain - to see homeless people, but still there is what I suspect may be a common INFP struggle: plenty of room for disparity between the depth and intensity of what I feel and the impact of what I do. It is not a disparity born out of not wanting to do something, but out of the challenge of balancing and distributing resources to successfully sustain myself in addition to effectively improving life for other people.
> 
> The first problem I encounter is that there are so many more people I care about than resources I have to do something about it. I _have_ to provide myself with shelter, food, and transportation first before I can care for others, because I won't have any resources at all if I don't prioritize my own stability. And I just don't see any feasible way of addressing the suffering of millions of people without completely draining myself. An additional problem is that for a substantial percentage of the homeless population, the root of their homelessness is mental illness and/or substance issues - often both. So realistically my fiance and I could probably take two people into our apartment - it would be quite cramped but I think we would be ok - but just providing them with shelter and even food doesn't solve the more systemic problems that are making it challenging for them to sustain a "normal" life. Those are problems that can really only be tackled on a much greater level, unless I become their personal therapist, and I'm certainly not qualified for that, nor do I think I could do it sustainability while still maintaining an income.
> 
> ...


your wording too complex for me


----------



## Brown bear (Jul 25, 2016)

DOGSOUP said:


> Defining the identity of one's group, culture, sub-culture and self through Otherness is very much a thing in sociology.
> 
> Here is another article, if you are interested: https://othersociologist.com/otherness-resources/


nah.


----------



## Brown bear (Jul 25, 2016)

DOGSOUP said:


> How is it _amoral_? It's selective morality, sure, applied only to the ones this person values the most. But amoralism would be complete lack of morals, again, by definition "without moral quality". Amoral person (either by nature or by choice) would not have a moral principle of helping their loved ones any more so than helping anyone - because, by definition, they are _unaware_ of or _unaffected_ by moral questions to begin with.
> 
> Besides, you also completely leave out most philosophical, scientific and religious views of moral relativism, by only using everyday examples of people who make moral judgements that are relative to their situation and other people.


nah


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

angelfish said:


> All of this is to point out that I see moral apathy versus moral engagement on a different axis than moral relativity versus moral universality, and both of those on separate axes than moral inactivity versus moral activity. We could certain argue the merits and demerits of each, and certainly there is likely correlation between the scales - however, I think it is possible to have...


These axes are a great idea. Love it.

I am interested to hear which of these you think would correlate? Apathy might affect activity?


----------



## Brown bear (Jul 25, 2016)

DOGSOUP said:


> These axes are a great idea. Love it.
> 
> I am interested to hear which of these you think would correlate? Apathy might affect activity?


i long 2 B touched


----------



## Brown bear (Jul 25, 2016)

DOGSOUP said:


> These axes are a great idea. Love it.
> 
> I am interested to hear which of these you think would correlate? Apathy might affect activity?


sexually AND emotionally!


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Brown bear said:


> i long 2 B touched


Can't help you with that, sry.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Brown bear said:


> Explain this.


For example, you don't appear to be wanting to learn, only argue. Therefore attempting to explain something complex isn't worth it. Value judgement. :happy:


----------



## Brown bear (Jul 25, 2016)

Neverontime said:


> For example, you don't appear to be wanting to learn, only argue. Therefore attempting to explain something complex isn't worth it. Value judgement. :happy:


:happy:


----------



## Brown bear (Jul 25, 2016)

DOGSOUP said:


> Can't help you with that, sry.


Yeah right


----------



## Eren Jaegerbomb (Nov 13, 2015)

Well, it's not like you don't have any flaws Mr. INTJ supposed to gather information from both sides and be analytical. I'm not a whiny, tyrant toddler. You must hang around some people that were brought up badly. Anyone can have this type of behavior.
Or do you live in an area full of rich people. And I mean, rich as in millionaires. Because _most_ rich kids expect anything they want, because they've been brought up in such a way that they don't really appreciate or fully understand the value of things. Or they could do but their upbringing might have made them snobby.

OH, and I noticed in your other thread you say I seem to be selfish, yes I am a bit, but that isn't my motive in life. I don't have a billion ulterior motives. I don't act like a whiny psycho. Also, what happened at work was really embarrassing, I work at a restaurant, in an open kitchen, would you like everyone to hear details about your sex/romantic life? No I don't think so, I keep those things private, I don't even tell my best friends. Plus, I'm an unhealthy INFP so don't take me as an example for EVERY INFP Out there. I know two other INFPs and they're really nice people. And I'm not tooting my horn, but I still have a good heart And I'm quite generous.

These manipulative, emotionally whiny people you describe COULD actually be psychopathic or something of the sort. Because some can put on quite a facade.


----------



## Brown bear (Jul 25, 2016)

ExtremelyBored said:


> These manipulative, emotionally whiny people you describe COULD actually be psychopathic or something of the sort. Because some can put on quite a facade.


Nah, just normal run-of-the-mill emotional manipulators.


----------



## Brown bear (Jul 25, 2016)

ExtremelyBored said:


> These manipulative, emotionally whiny people you describe COULD actually be psychopathic or something of the sort. Because some can put on quite a facade.


More likely psychotic than psychopathic.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Awww *strokes @Brown bears fuzzy head* 
We're not always mean, I promise


----------

