I give to you, Moral Typology. I was inspired by Karl Jung.
Introvert = egoist
The egoist isn’t an animal, he has a morale all his own. His morale is, rather, reciprocal altruism. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. He believes in blessing those who bless him and cursing those who curse him, or anyone else for that matter. Justice is on his mind. He keeps a record of rights and wrongs. The scales of justice he subjects and submits everything upon. Forgiveness it not in his vocabulary, the greater good doesn’t interest him, or at least, only that karma is carried out to the utmost. A masculine sort of morality it is, reminiscent of John Wayne, wild Jews and cowboys. Reciprocal altruism is another name for this brand of egoism. Egoism proper, meaning, all for me and none for you, it is an absence and thus, isn’t treated in my moral typology. Race, tribe and culture play more significance in this morale than in the altruist morale. If he is to help the whole, he asks, what serveth me???
Altruist = extrovert
The altruist is interested in sacrifice. Even if you get nothing, nothing, nothing out of it, you and yours (family/tribe) ought to sacrifice for the good of the whole, a sacrificial ideology it is. Rehabilitations becomes more important than justice. Criminals aren’t punished, instead, they’re re-educated. It matters not what kind of past you lead, or your ancestors, what matters is the kind of life you will lead, therefore, fundamentally, altruism is future driven. Your primary thought should be, how can you benefit the whole, what you and your family get out of it is only relevant to help you help the whole, you and yours have little or no value in and of yourselves. Race, culture and even species play less prominence in this morale, altruists are more likely to place value on the good of all, irrespective of culture, race and species, the happiness of all or the abstract, functioning good of all (survival, perhaps not so abstract) is of paramount importance. It should come as no surprise to find the altruist fight on behalf of animals and strangers than the egoist.
Intuitive = Radical
The radical is interested in doing what he or she believes to be the good, according to his or her unique criteria for discerning the good, not to traditions, the majority, what authority has to say. The radical ignores all that, it has no sacred cows/taboos, it looks toward a radical, revolutionary and progressive good. The radical is the reformer, the rebel spirit, always questioning the way things have hitherto been done, the promethean rebel with a cause (I am the only true radical on ILP, I am the only autonomous being on this earth since Nietzsche, you can feel my autonomy, I know). The radical is creative, passionate, a reformer, gazes forward toward a bright new future, how the world could be, how norms could be changed and improved upon.
Sensing = Conventional
The conventional person does things by the book, does things the way they’ve always been done, if it’s not broken, don’t fix it, is his or her motto. The respecter of authority, tradition, the moral majority. Looks to the past, rather than to the way things could be done. The conventional person has no idea what actually is good, has few rationales for substantiating their convictions, yet has the strongest convictions of them all. Has no idea why this or that is right, substitutes tradition, authority, moral majority for the good, or, what I call secondary moral characteristics. Well, it was always done this way, if it was bad, someone would’ve changed it by now, it must be good, the intelligent men in suits wouldn’t support it.
Thinking = Logos
Logos people do things according to reason, reason allows for no error or contradiction, so it comes as no surprise to find consistency among logos people. They do what is in the best interest of function, not form/hedonism/emotivism. They reason, well, if my pathos desires this and that, this and that will end up in a world of shit consequences, therefore, i ought not to desire this and that, but must supress my desires for the greater good of the future, the longterm etc. The rational person tends to think things through, he or she tends to be more reluctant, methodical, hesitant, less hedonistic, more ascetic and less given to irrational bouts of emotivism, caring for this person or that person, when it’s clear they’re already dead and serve no logical purpose (cripples, diseased etc). Less impulsive, weighs prosequences and consequences of each dilemma carefully, Spock like, logical, consistent, objective, tries to find rational pricniples beheind the chaos of moral and evaluative decision making.
Feeling = Pathos
The feeling person ignores rationale and is inconsistent, lacks general purpose, does things according to the whim of the fleeting moment, hedonistic and emotive, impulsive and reactionary. Often, they have peculiar and complex impetuses, each suited to a particular situtation, they go by what feels right, not what is right. They’re often excessive, reckless, but not beastly. It should be noted, none of these types are more beastly than others, each has a evolution all it’s own, though one may be tempted to associate emotions with beasts and reason with humans, humans are the most emotionally complex in addition to being the most reasonable of all the creatures. The Pathos person is concerned with form over function. Indulgent, decadent creatures they are.
Perceptive = Consequential
The consequentialist does according to individuals, situations. They don’t particularly like overarching principles, laws, order etc, every situations and person is totally unique to them and is assessed on it’s own.
Judgemental = Deontological
Deontologists are just the oppositie. They tend to find orderly principles for everything, governing their actions for every concievable circumstance.
If a personality typology, why not a moral typology?
