![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jeroentiggelmanLet me first point out that I tend to use the word "morality" for a belief system, while I tend to use the word "ethics" for a code of conduct.
I think it is important to develop a sense of how things should be. I believe that one's "morality" is something that needs to evolve, but should have some sort of firm grounding that allows a sense of continuity. There are in fact multiple reasons for this. I do not think that you can develop something with too much elasticity and really get anywhere over time. I also think that what other people see had better be somewhat consistent or they will get all confused and effective exchange is hindered. (I note that what other people see is more through the "ethics" level, but I would like to assume that these two levels were related.)
I think that "morality" is not something that comes out of a vacuum, but is actually something that strives to achieve something [which I am not going to attempt to describe in this post right now]. As such, it is not something that ought to be at all static, so a willingness to continue to think and really consider alternatives, and revise with an open mind, are positive traits in my book.
I do think there are several levels of "shielding" related to this: ones ethics are probably less quickly changed than ones morality (to avoid misunderstanding and conflicts arising our of a sense of betrayal etc.), and ones morality is not quick to change at all, but only after careful consideration. Considering ideas, however, is always good, and the potential to find a completely unorthodox method of making sure that what is really important (that underlies all these systems) and the incisiveness to be willing to implement those if it really did matter that much, I consider a strength.
I am not sure in how far this is an "INTJ point of view", but I think that INTJs could be more likely to successfully work through this.
I think it is important to develop a sense of how things should be. I believe that one's "morality" is something that needs to evolve, but should have some sort of firm grounding that allows a sense of continuity. There are in fact multiple reasons for this. I do not think that you can develop something with too much elasticity and really get anywhere over time. I also think that what other people see had better be somewhat consistent or they will get all confused and effective exchange is hindered. (I note that what other people see is more through the "ethics" level, but I would like to assume that these two levels were related.)
I think that "morality" is not something that comes out of a vacuum, but is actually something that strives to achieve something [which I am not going to attempt to describe in this post right now]. As such, it is not something that ought to be at all static, so a willingness to continue to think and really consider alternatives, and revise with an open mind, are positive traits in my book.
I do think there are several levels of "shielding" related to this: ones ethics are probably less quickly changed than ones morality (to avoid misunderstanding and conflicts arising our of a sense of betrayal etc.), and ones morality is not quick to change at all, but only after careful consideration. Considering ideas, however, is always good, and the potential to find a completely unorthodox method of making sure that what is really important (that underlies all these systems) and the incisiveness to be willing to implement those if it really did matter that much, I consider a strength.
I am not sure in how far this is an "INTJ point of view", but I think that INTJs could be more likely to successfully work through this.
