Eduqas Alevel RS Ethics 1E Intuitionism

who are the key scholars for intuitionism

PritchardGE Moore and HA Pricthard

what is the definition of intuitionism

a theory based that moral truths are known by intuition. Intuitionists belie that the basis of morality cannot be explained by reduction to some aspects of the natural world but that it is simply given in our intuition.

what is GE Moores overview

intuition is an innate ability by all moral agents. The process of intuition is often defined as the act or faculty of knowing or sensing without the use of of rational processes, you just know.

Although moral agents cannot explain how they know something is good, human beings do still recognise goodness when they see it such as seeing the colour yellow, we recognise it but we can't define it, or falling in love we know it but cannot define it.

why is intuitionism universal and cognitivist

- everyone has intuitionism and it is innate. Morality is universal because it sits independently to humans and we come to know it through intuitionism

- it is cognitivist because it is a factual statement

objective moral laws exists independently of human beings

non natural property, they are unique and basic moral principles.

non natural: Moore says that we cannot come to know them through empirical evidence or an investigation. That does not make this non cognitive. they are propositions and discoverable

sui generis: they are of their own kind, they are their own class. they cannot be explained through any kind of term or broken down into terms easier to understand, they are already their most simple format.

moral truths can be discovered using our minds in an intuitive way

rational - self evident - free from justification - immediate intellectual awareness

they are self justifying and non natural, find out in a different way, instead you use your intuition and immediate apprehension. You cannot justify it or prove that they exist. Not the same as a belief because beliefs are backed up by reasoning or evidence not conferenced with the objective truth. A belief is non immediate and you can loose it but you cannot loose intuition, permanent and unchanging. You just have to accept them

Intuitive ability is innate and the same for all moral agents

what is meant by good - yellow - disagreement on implementation - asking the wrong question

Ann obvious truth, something which is evident to us might not be to everyone else, what is obvious to them might not be obvious to us. Self evident truths = objective and do not need evidence to back them up they are their own evidence. Understanding them is enough.

Moore says that we know what is intuitively good, it is not trained or taught. Everyone has this and it is the same for everyone. Murder is bad and everyone else agrees, good is simply bringing about good to all

Intuition needs a mature mind so not infallible

needs to understand the situation - think a child doing maths - contemplation - Prima Ficae

WD Ross - mature minds are needed to intuit whether something is true or not. We need to be able to recognise this, success requires familiarity with our intuitions which will require knowledge and maturity.

to helps us intuit the moral truth you need to understand the situation fully, by understanding the action, relationships and others involved.

if you do not. have all the details then you cant be sure it is 100% correct which can lead to self doubt.

intuition gives us prima facie which is the initial reason to believe them, we should trust them unless there should be some evidence to the contrary

intuition allows for objective moral values

intrinsic good - multiple elements of good - interaction/ aesthetics - bring about the. most good

you don't know you are just well educated, such as a ship captain know a storm is coming or a curse when someone is close to death. Moral truths are the same, we may sometimes be mistaken but we know these objective moral truths are right and we have become tuned to recognise and implement them.

intrinsic good = we should guard against considering something to be good just because it is instrumental in achieving something else. Multiple features = guard against assuming that there is one feature that makes something good. we cannot assume that happiness alone is the sole good, though good things have happiness in common

HA Pritchard ought to do has no definition

he says that you cannot define an outcome by the ought, moral agents cannot look for empirical evidence to see what they ought to do. A horse is complex and can be described by the colour yellow cannot be described.

moral agents are able to recognise what to do in a moral situation, ought to do, based on intuition. The ought then becomes duty. 'ought to do then becomes must do' Prichard therefore falls into the deontological (duty) intuitionism category

you cannot derive an ought from an ism we cannot say that we ought to do a good instead it is our intuition that guides us to do what we should do. It is observed through nature.

two ways of thinking (general and moral)

general thinking = informs moral thinking, reason - moral agents use reason to assess the facts of a moral situation e.g women 12 weeks pregnant and wants an abortion

moral thinking = intuition based on an immediate intuition about the right action to do such as whether the action of an abortion is right in the moment

the facts inform an tune your intuition. people check before submitting something because tuition says first check that I haven't missed something that will change what intuition is used off you know the factors not the outcome

recognise what we ought to do by intuition

cannot go back to general thinking - must rely on intuition - put self in that position

what is naturalistic fallacy

treating the term "good" as if it were the name of a natural property (don't base right and wrong on nature)

What is HA Prichard's view on intuitionism

Prichard supports Moore's view on intuitionism in that good is indefinable. He focused on the term ought to do, also believing that ought had no definition (like colours). Therefore moral agents cannot empirically study what they ought to do.

The sense that we ought to do certain things arises in our unreflective consciousness. Obligations can be often inconvenient therefore if we doubt them and want a theory to prove that we should keep them, this Is then not necessary. Moral theories cannot prove that it is worth keeping an obligation because obligations cannot be proven - they are self evident. The remedy to the doubt of an obligation is to remember that the situation which gave rise to our sense of obligation in the first place

what are the strengths of intuitionism

- universal

- identifies moral absolutes

- sees morality as objective not subjective

- in theory, intuitionism allows us to solve ethical issues instantly

- should be simplistic

- gives morality importance rather than being down to person preference

what are the challenges to intuitionism

1. there is no proof that moral intuition exists

2. JL Mackie inventing Right and Wrong

3. intuitive truths can differ widely

4. there is no obvious way to resolve conflicting intuitions

there is no proof that moral intuition exists

It is appealing as a concept but there is little support for the approach beyond the feeling or sensation of having a duty or knowing goodness. This then means that there is no way to verify or falsify an intuitive point claim.

the whole theory rests on the idea that it cannot be proved so that is proof. But it is clearly not. This is then unreliable and unphilosophical as it is not the same for each person.

J Dancy points out that if intuitionists are trying to show that there are moral facts it is difficult to understand where we can ind these moral facts in the world. One side is naturalism where you can see the moral act in the world and judge its effect,, the other is intuition where there is no proof as you can't observe someone's feeling.

The suggestion that moral judgements are made, or oral problems solved by just sitting down and having an ethical intuition is a travesty of actually thinking.

JL Mackie inventing Right and Wrong

Mackie also argued that if intuitionists claim that there are moral facts, how do we come to know them? The claim that they are known by intuition seems to suggest that we have come kind of sixth sense or moral faculty that reveals moral truth to us in the same way that our eyes tell us about the world. This lead to the claim that intuitionists coffer nothing more than a sense of bewilderment dressed up to look like an answer.

Dancy points out that intuitionism seems to be a way to try and award oneself some kind or moral authority that enables us to accuse anyone who disagrees with us 'moral blindness' as we have intuited the truth and they have not.

intuitive truths can differ widely

Moore and Prichard do not agree over what it is that is intuited or how we come by our intuition. Moore intuits the good whereas Prichard intuits a moral duty to perform certain actions.

Each of these scholars argued that what is know through intuition is different. Moore takes a consequentialist approach, arguing that the goodness or badness of moral action is based on its outcome, whereas Prichard is more deontoloucmal and suggests that get clear duties telling us how to act and ought to behave

Different societies have understood duty to be different, they see different intuition as different level of importance and goodness. There is no reason why what is seen by these scholars as intuition might just be the unconscious acceptance of the norms of the society that they live in.

The objective goods change over time and people can intuit the exact opposite to someone else

there is no obvious way to resolve conflicting intuitions

If it was naturalism we could easily see the wrong answer based on the evidence that we can see. Intuitionism has no level of evidence or even physical appearance meaning that it is had to regulate and rule.

without firm basis for moral judgements, such as empirical evidence there is no way for us to choose between different intuitions. If two people have different intuitions about a moral case how do you choose between them? Humes law means that these approaches have been dismissed as inaccurate ways of understanding moral truths or values.

Prichards system attempts to explain that error in intuition are actually failures in gathering all the facts if a situation prior to intuition taking place. Therefore a conflict between two intuitions is based on poor general reasoning and that should return to the situation to find out more about it. The best we can hope for is that gathering more facts will lead to renewed intuitions that might agree with eachother.

is morality intuitive? YES

- There is a shared understanding of what is right and wrong. Where does this come from?Intuition is a good solution because it is innate. Most (not all though) would agree that murder is inherently immoral.

- We do react to gut instincts. When we say an action is right or wrong, we often haven’t weighed up the action itself or used our ‘general thinking’ as Prichard calls it. Usually we have just made this decision based on our gut experience, thus intuition.

- Prichard’s view of deontological intuitionism is seemingly apparent in the world today through the Tradesman Analogy. We do adhere to duty because of obligation based on intuition rather than consequence. We can find examples of this in our everyday life quite easily. I ought to do something, why? Because my intuition tells me to. Can you think of an example in your life to support this view?

- Moore tried to safeguard about this by saying that not everything that one intuits is a moral truth and Prichard argues that we need a full understanding of the dilemma before making a judgement but this still presents difficulties.

is morality intuitive? NO

- intuition may give us some guidance however, it should be recognised that most of what we know is from sense experience and from the empirical world. Albeit this may be a subconscious understanding but nevertheless, we don't 'just know' what is right and wrong.

- Freud argues that our superego contains the restrictions we have have learned from society and this is subconscious. We have been influenced by our upbringing, society etc. This suggests then morality is not based on intuition alone because it is informed by knowledge gained from society.

- Peter Vardy says that intuitionism does not differentiate between statements about belief and objective rightness. E.g I believe it is right to give to charity is different from it is right to give to charity. Vardy argues that there is no convincing evidence as to why they are the same. We need justification of why they are able other make that claim, e.g at least with naturalism they appeal to the natural world.

- Intuitionists don't agree which moral statements are actually self evident. E.g Moore takes a teleological approach where as Prichard grounds his understanding in Deontological.

It is a flawed theory of meta ethics if even the intuitionists cannot agree on the origin or driving force.

- There is no way to verify intuitive claims. They are fallible and we are fallible so it could lead to a slippery slope of moral justification.

- Prichard highlights how moral intuition needs to have a mature mind. However, does this infer some kind of elitism and suggest that those without his definition of a mature mind are not able to access moral truths. Further, this could suggest that intuition could be learned if it needs a mature mind? Well if this is the case then surely it is not intuition, it is a skill which completely contradicts the premise of theory.