INTUITIONISM- IT JUST IS
Main thinkers?
G.E Moore
Prichard
W.D Ross
What is it?
A cognitivist approach to meta-ethics which attempts to
avoid the naturalistic fallacy (is to ought) and explain what good and bad is.
Why?
People reach different moral conclusions but usually reach
them in a similar way. This suggests that there is an inner driving force of
moral decision making.
What is good?
It is always recognisable and universal but we can’t define
it. It’s like the colour yellow- it’s an adjective but we can’t describe it
itself.
So we actually don’t know what good is…?
Well it’s beyond human knowledge. It’s irreducible- we need
no further explanation. Good is something we can point to to make a point. It’s
not pleasure or happiness but these are good.
Right…so how do we make moral judgements?
Based on our intuition of good things! We make moral
decisions based on what outcome will create the most good things
Kind of like utilitarianism then… okay. Who is G.E Moore?
G.E Moore was born in 1903. He criticised naturalism for the
obvious reason- we cannot use a non-moral premise to make a moral judgement. He
believed that moral judgements are not proved empirically but “we recognise
good things intuitively”. In fact, he had a kind of pseudo-utilitarian view-
evaluating consequences in terms of basic principles.
So are there any moral truths?
There are some but they are known not provable. You can’t
infinitely break down to more basic beliefs- like the colour yellow.
Who is our second person?
Pritchard. 1871-1947
Key word to kick start our memory?
Obligations
What does this mean?
If goodness is recognised by example, so are our
obligations. We will intuitively know when we OUGHT to do something.
Can we define obligations?
They’re as indefinable as ‘good’, actually.
Right… what’s the role of intuition in decision making
then?
It decides what to do in a situation. People get it wrong
because some people’s intuition is more developed than others.
You identified two types of thinking, what are they and
what do they do?
1.
Reasoning- collects data
2.
Intuition- decides what to do with the data
Obviously there are some problems with this. Give three.
Conflicting obligations, some people don’t care about
obligations, which option is more enlightened?- people have different
conclusions.
Who is our third person?
W.D Ross
Key word to kickstart memory?
Prima Facie duties
What did he say?
In any situation, moral duties and obligations are apparent
and intuition again depends on a person’s maturity. Our choice of action is down
to judgement
Are there any ethical dilemmas?
Nooooooo. One duty would always outweigh others.
That’s a bit harsh. What about the mother and her unborn
child in a life or death situation!
Well in that situation we’d have to take into account prima
facie duties which are universally known at face value.
Well, what are they?
Promise keeping, reparation from harm, gratitude, justice,
benefice, self-improvement, non-maleficence
Is that it? What about lying to save someone’s life?
Granted they’re not complete, but your hypothetical
situation would weigh up promise keeping perhaps with non-maleficence, justice,
benefice, and gratitude. In this situation, you’d obviously use your judgement
and lie.
What if you self-improve yourself in order to beat
someone you’re jealous of?
Well something can be a right action but be done for wrong
reasons. You have a personal duty.
What did Nietzsche say about intuitionism?
That it was choosing to be “ethically colour-blind” and that
the disagreements were about what actions not good things in themselves.
What did MacIntyre say about intuitionism?
It’s always a “signal that something has gone badly wrong”
Are there any ethical discussions?
Not really. You can’t justify your shady intuitions so you
can just continue to share them… Your own moral principles aren’t self evident
Where else can intuitions come from? Is this a strength
or weakness?
God, cultural conditioning, evolution, World of the Forms.
Can be compatible with the idea of a conscience.
Another two weaknesses?
People’s intuitions differ and it’s frustratingly
irreducible.
There are only three strengths. What are they?
1.
Instant answer
2.
Appeals to human nature
3.
Avoids complex debate
Moore’s sassy quote:
“Good is good and that is the end of the matter”- fair
“We cannot actually define yellow”- fair
“Neither science nor religion can establish the basic
principles of morality”- hmmm. They’ve done a better job than you!
Prichard’s decent quote:
“Not only goodness that is indefinable but all types of
obligation”
Rating overall:
2/10
Avoids point, load of bull, vague
