1E - Meta-Ethical Approaches - Intuitionism

Explain the views of intuitionism that objective moral laws exist independently of human beings and that moral truths can be discovered by using our minds in an intuitive way.

‣ The principles of ethics are a priori + exist independently
- These are self-evident truths ∴ do not need to be est.
- Just as 'good' = best defined as 'good', we recognise 'goodness' through intuition - it does not need any working out

‣ Moral agents possess a moral intuition to recognise good/bad
- Moore concedes that he does not know the intricate details of how it works
- Intuition = a faculty of knowing / sensing without use of a rational process

‣ 'Good' does not mean we recognise good actions/consequences
- We intuitively recognise intrinsic goods
- Moore highlights two: friendship + aesthetic beauty

‣ Our moral intuition reveals objective moral truths

What is intuitionism also known as?
Why?

‣ 'Ethical non-naturalism'
‣ ∵ it removes itself from the idea that objective moral laws can be induced from empirical world
- Does not mean that it is a metaphysical approach to ethics as it asserts that moral principles exist in the same way that numbers exist

Explain how our intuitive ability is innate and the same for all moral agents.

‣ Good = suigeneris (Latin for unique, without comparison)

‣ Ability to recognise 'good' = innate + same for all moral agents - universal

‣ Moore differentiated between intuition and things that are self-evident:
- Intution = process to arrive at recogition of things that are self-evident

‣ Conscious intuition reveals objective truths, not common sense things

‣ Intuition ≠ about belief in what actions are right, but about things that are good in themselves - there is no way to know them to be true

Explain the view that intuition needs a mature mind so that it is not infallible.

‣ At some point, there must be a framework from which all judgements can be made

‣ If we continue looking retrospectively upon knowledge, there must be a 'first cause' otherwise knowledge would be infinite
- Does this begin with our education or is it a priori/innate?

‣ Intuitionists argue that knowledge of good = innate ∴ reveals a sense of infallibility to the idea of self-evident when it comes to acting upon this knowledge

‣ Any fallibility of intuition = directly related to how we practically apply it, not to do with the recognition / self-evident nature
- With maturity, people will recognise that it is their duty to apply their intuitive knowledge

Explain the view that intuition allows for objective moral laws.

‣ Our duty can only be defined as the action that will cause more good to exist than any possible alternative
- We do this by weighing up consequences of actions

In what way does Warnack say that intuitionism and utilitarianism are similar?

‣ "They differ only about the question of how to assess the value of the consequences"

Explain H. A. Prichard's notion that 'ought' is indefinable but can be recognised by intuition.

‣ Like Moore, Prichard argued that moral knowledge = indefinable
- 'ought' = a simple term

‣ Moore believed that 'goodness' = basis of our intuitive recognition, and that 'rightness' / 'oughtness' = outworking of this (teleological)

‣ Whereas, Prichard believed that 'rightness' / 'oughtness' = the basis of our intuitive recognition (deontological)
- When there are actual moral conflicts, we learn to decide upon the greater obligation, and over time, develop a more advanced, intuitive sense of right / wrong

‣ Despite empirical evidence, moral intuitionism / sense of duty = driving force, not a goal of creating the most good

‣ 'Duty' remains an underivitable, indefinable, and irreducible concept

‣ Although duties may conflict, they are not reducible to one basic duty like consequentialism, and are independent of consequentialist thinking

According to Prichard, what are the two ways of thinking?

‣ General
‣ Moral

According to Prichard, what is general reasoning?

‣ Using empirical evidence to present a logical argument

‣ Preliminaries = gathering of claims - general reasoning may lead to an ultimate claim which may well be the ultimate moral duty, but it does not necessarily have to be

According to Prichard, what is moral reasoning?

‣ Using intuitive thought to recognise one's moral duty
‣ It is present in our unreflective consciousness

What does Prichard say that general reasoning must not become?

‣ The driver for recognising one's moral duty
- Only intuition can do this

What is the relationship between moral and general reasoning?

‣ Moral reasoning subsumes general reasoning, but general reasoning should not take a subordinate role

‣ Prichard = fearful of the consequentialist nature of general reasoning - pointed out that there is the potential for distortion of duty
- Refers to Aristotle's eudaimonia to demonstrate how the identification of an intuitive ultimate good (eudaimonia) can be distorted when different duties are derived from it

‣ General reasoning shores up initial intuition - does not distort it
- Not used independently to arrive at a conclusion by presenting / manipulating evidence

What did Prichard use to demonstrate that moral reasoning is that which is "confirmed by doubt"?

• Descartes' principle of scepticism

‣ i.e. general reasoning = used to confirm what we originally recognise through intuition

‣ e.g. moral reasoning states that it is my duty to be kind to my parents; general reasoning confirms this

‣ We sometimes check mathematical additions even when it is correct

‣ "we, like Descartes, propose a process of reflection on our thinking to find a test of knowledge [...] a condition which ex hypothesis existed independently of the process of reflection"

Explain J. L. Mackie's challenge to intuitionism: the argument from queerness (no proof that moral intuition exists).

‣ Intuitionism = so implausible that Mackie referred to it as "the argument from queerness"

‣ There are no objective ethical values (i.e. values that are verified / part of empirical world yet still independent of us)

‣ Intuitionists fail to explain why an innate, universal, moral intuition exists

‣ If moral properties were objective values, they would be utterly different from anything else in the universe ∴ implausible that they exist; similar to Kant's challenge of the cosmological argument that if God existed, he would be so different from our experience that we would not be able to recognise him

‣ Our knowledge = limited to the phenomenal world ∴ not possible to speculate about what may/may not happen independently of space/time

‣ The suggestions that moral judgements are made [...] by just sitting down and having an ethical intuition is a travesty of actual moral thinking"

‣ People have an intuition it will rain tomorrow - the weather forecast is not based on these intuitions

What is the challenge to intuitionism from a sociological perspective?

‣ Moral intuition comes through social conditioning ∴ our moral intuition = no more than a reflection of our community

Explain the challenge to intuitionism: intuitive truths can differ widely and there is no way to resolve conflicting intuitions.

‣ There is no established list of duties ∴ people = unaware of what to do; what they think they should do will differ widely

‣ Although Prichard made reference to suggested duties through illustration, and Ross presented 'prima facie' duties, the wide difference is unavoidable

‣ If two people met the same moral dilemma and had different intuitions, how would this be resolved?
- It appears more complex to work out problems than solving them

‣ Intuitionist philosophers cannot agree on what duties are universal
- Moore - consequentialist; Prichard + Ross - deontological
- Norman: even for the philosopher, "what is self-evidently true for one is self-evidently false for the other"

‣ No amount of logical reasoning could deter a decision ∵ intuition ≠ based on logical reasoning
- Deontological intuitionists would argue that this does not mean the truths themselves are conflicting ∵ in any situation, there is one single intuitive truth

‣ If specific moral propositions are known and correctly understood, then everyone would accept them; but, as there is no such universal agreement, there can be no self-evident moral propositions

What did Prichard say about different 'ought to' reactions? What is the issue with this?

‣ Some moral agents have developed their intuition more
‣ However, morality is relative

Give a quote from Moore than supports Mackie's challenge.

‣ "I imply nothing as the manner or origin of our cognition of intuition"
∴ it should not be taken as the basis of moral language