- Type: TiNe
- Development: l---
- Attitude: Adaptive
The thing is value IS indeed not something one can self decide. Values – as in “principles or standards of behavior” can not be self determined, they are being built since we are little by input from others – our parents, siblings, teachers, classmates… I can’t think of any value I have that I came up with completely on my own. I did not simply look at a classmates’ colored pencils and thought stealing is wrong. I learned from my parents, who learned from their parents and so on that stealing is wrong. Everyone saying stealing is wrong will automatically quote the Bible or the religious text they believe in or that is most appropriate from a cultural point of view. It seems to me that most of our current values are directly adopted from those close to us and constantly shaped by society and cultural trends.
I’m of the opinion that all truths are predicated upon baseless valuations. If you follow a line of reasoning for long enough then you will eventually reach a point where the reason for a reason was previously given as the reason for a different reason within the line of reasoning (sorry) and thus the line of reasoning becomes circular or semi-circular — there is no further reason, one must simply value the line of reasoning itself. If this inversion of reasoning does not occur then the line of reasoning will continue indefinitely, effectively producing the same result. I won’t elaborate any further so as to stay on topic, but my point is this: if values serve to terminate reasoning then we should not be looking into the origin of values (since that would only lead to further reasoning and delay our inevitable landing upon baseless valuations), instead we should examine how one deals with and processes values after they have been received. Considering this, I’ve done some reflection which I’d like to share — perhaps it will be of value.
I do not believe that any action in and of itself can be intrinsically good or bad, that label is given to an action by the subject. Subjects are free to and indeed do disagree on exactly which labels should be applied to any given action, morality is therefore relative to the subject that holds it (perhaps this point warrants more philosophical reasoning, but again, I shall refrain in order to stay on topic). I think this admission of relativity forces one to discern that which they truly value since there is no longer a predetermined right and wrong. Following this, I’m not sure there is anything which I genuinely and consistently value (this is a little exaggerated) except for my specific mode of analytical thought. I am somewhat disturbed by the thought of someone forcing me to commit to any additional values because I cannot be sure how genuine and consequently how consistent they will be. However, this is not to say that I am necessarily uncomfortable making any value judgements whatsoever. For example, if somebody punched my friend, then I would probably punch the person who punched my friend because in the moment — considering the interpersonal relationships — I deemed that the ‘moral’ thing to do. However if you were to remove me from the situation and ask me if it is moral to commit such an act of violence then I would not be so confident in my response and would likely prefer to simply not answer. I’ve somewhat lost my train of thought now so I’ll end off with this: perhaps Fe is more likely to discern values and act on them in relation to their position within the immediate interpersonal/cultural dynamic. Meanwhile Fi is more static, still receiving values from the overall culture but discerning them beforehand and then storing them away in a repository for later use.