Is this about completely dismissing stereotypes, or about not locking into stereotypes but still using them just as much as anyone else? Like, would a personist feel threathened if he saw a shark swimming near him, even though the shark had yet to actually show any interest in him (ideally)?
A distinction between judgment of Object and judgment of Subject needs to be made. Objective judgments are scientific and causal, and basically ignore that any Subjective aspect of Being exists. When we predict that by throwing something in the air that it will come down, or that X chemical + Y chemical = Z chemical, or less certain predictions like "this animal is dangerous", through even to "this human is dangerous" we are making an Objective judgment, cause and effect. This in itself is fine.
The problem is when you treat a person as though the Subjective aspect of them did not exist, or that their Subject could also be treated in a cause and effect manner. In this way we treat a person not as a person, but as an Object. Human behaviour is predictable, sure, but when we assume that this predictability is a result of the essence of the person, we err, and err in a morally damaging way.
You do raise an interesting point of how this applies to animals. Now, for the Objective view to wholly be valid in judging a case, the Subjective causes must be zero, and as Objective causes are by nature deterministic causal relations, Subjective causes must be due to something else. In particular, they are due to (Free) Will - so the question reduces to whether animals have (Free) Will.
Subjective effects, however, must always be considered. Thus, even one who denies the aspect of (Free) Will of animals must still take into account the emotional state an action imposes on the animal. Thus, to cause unneeded pain is nonetheless an immoral act.
. But the difference is that we as INFJ must learn this skill, it never comes natural.
