RS a level ETHICS - intuitionism

AO1 and AO2

summarise Prichard’s intuitionism in 3 points

moral obligations are shown to us through our intuition

reason collates the facts concerned with a decision and intuition determines what to do

not all people are capable of intuitively doing the right thing

summarise Moore’s intuitionism in 2 points

moral judgements are based on our infallible intuitive understanding of good things

good is undefinable outside of examples, compared to yellow

summarise Ross’s intuitionism in 3 points

agrees with Moore that goodness cannot be defined

developed prima facie (first appearance) duties. intuition defines these duties

experience helps us get better at making moral decisions

what is intuitionism

the theory that moral decisions are based on our own infallible and intuitive knowledge of goodness

part of our human ability is inherent knowledge of good and bad

who proposed the naturalistic fallacy

Moore

is intuitionism cognitive

yes

how is a self-evident proposition (such as intuitive moral statements) different to a truth evident through common sense?

self-evidence is not relative in the way a seemingly obvious statement is

self-evident truths do not need empirical evidence

quote from Locke defining a self-evident proposition

such a proposition “carries its own light and evidence with it”

quote from Broad defining a self-evident proposition

“such that a rational being of sufficient insight and intelligence could see it to be true by merely inspecting it”

what 4 criterion does Sidgwick present for a statement to be self-evident

be clear and distinct

be ascertained by careful reflection

be consistent with other self-evident truths

attract general consensus

criticism of the idea that intuitive knowledge of goodness is “self-evident”

pervasive moral disagreement casts doubt on the intuitionists’ claim that certain moral propositions are self-evident; there is no universal assent

how does Ross answer the challenge of moral disagreement to his intuitionism

suggests that every prima facie duty is self evident, such as avoiding causing harm because harm is prima facie wrong, but the weight of these duties is not self evident, and are left to the individuals opinion

why might a feeling of moral contradiction between intuition and beliefs be a strength of intuitionism

demonstrates that intuitionism is real, outside of conditioning or rationality

as Nagel argues in ‘The View from Nowhere’, ethics should be challenging

in what ways might intuitionism be reductive

biological reductionism: as intuition is a part of human ability, it may just be a product of evolution; ethics isn’t accessing something real, it’s just an evolved cognitive process

why might ethics being unique to humans create a problem for intuitionism

incoherent with evolution argument - surely some animals evolve aspects of intuitiveness through natural selection. can animals be unethical or ethical, then?

what parallel can be drawn with Moore’s argument that moral intuition is part of the unique human function

Aristotle’s ‘Ergon’

is intuitionism ethical realism

yes, ethical statements refer to something discernible which can be proved in reference to intuition

ethical statements are not opinions; observing something wrong is observing a moral fact of the universe

2 points to summarise Moore’s ideas of good

a simple idea that we recognise intuitively

the moral worth of an action is based off how much ‘intrinsic' good’ it brings

summarise Ross’ idea of good

several ‘goods’ must be upheld through prima facie duties making Ross a deontologist

2 of Ross’s prima facie duties

promise keeping, non-maleficence

term to describe good in intuitionism

“simple”

quote from Moore on “good”

“it cannot be defined”