Intuitionism Explore and Evaluate the strengths and problems of Intuitionism as ethical language

What do remember of the 3 criticism of Naturalism? To avoid these criticisms, Moore argues for a non-naturalist position instead. What is non-naturalism?

Background Bentham, Mill, Kant and Aristotle are all ethical naturalists because they all argued that value statements can be defined in terms of factual statements. G.E. Moore denies the possibility of this because of the fact-value problem. The naturalistic fallacy led to the dominance of meta-ethics in the 20th century as attempted responses to the problem began to develop, namely, intuitionism, emotivism and prescriptivism… How are they naturalist? Bentham and Mill: The nature of human beings is to avoid pain and pursue pleasure. Therefore, human beings ought to avoid pain and pursue pleasure Kant: We are rational, therefore, we ought to be rational Aristotle: We have function, therefore, we ought to fulfill our function

Background continued… These responses tend to fall into two camps: Moral Realism (cognitivism) which asserts that moral claims are making reference to facts about the world. E.g. in the same way as saying ‘it is raining,’ the statement, ‘killing someone is wrong’ is stating a fact of the matter. Moral Anti-Realism (non cognitivism) says that certain statements are not referring to the world at all and so are not capable of being true or false in any real sense. There are no moral facts, and therefore, no moral knowledge. Moral realism (cognitivism) is objective. Moral statement are either right or wrong and are referring to properties of people or events in the same way, for example, legs are a property of a chair. A cognitive statement is a statement about which one can appropriately ask whether it is true or false. For example ‘it will rain today.’ Non-cognitive: the view that there are no ‘moral facts’ and therefore no moral knowledge. This is a statement which it is inappropriate to ask whether it is true or false. For example ‘shut the door.’

Intuitionism Task Read pages 104-5 Highlight the key points about theory (3 – 5) Discuss in pairs and try to work out what is ‘Intuitionism’? Select the key strengths and weaknesses, annotating your comments about

Intuitionism Intuitionists believe that moral norms have an objective existence that is independent of human experience. Morality is intuitive. Intuitionists believe that you cannot define words like ‘good’. We simply know something is good because out intuition tells us it is good. Intuitionism does not mean that all moral decisions are reached by relying on intuition, but that it enables people to know basic moral truths so that they are able to make ethical decisions.

So…….. What do we mean by Intuitions? Not worked out from evidence, we just have to think about it. Incapable of proof. Self-evidently true. Not ‘6th sense’ – more like maths / logic

Intuitionism The philosopher G.E. Moore criticised naturalism. Instead he said we have an infallible intuitive knowledge of good things. e.g. I don’t need to observe a murder to know that killing someone is wrong – I just know it is. In answer to the question, ‘what is good?’ Moore tells us that, in fact, it cannot be defined, but is known intuitively.

So what does Moore think? Some things are intrinsically valuable, and we should strive towards them (ideals) Moore identifies love of friendship and beauty as two of the most important. These values are known through intuition. We must consider our actions in terms of consequences: whether they promote these goods or damage them.

Simple v Complex Moore argued that there are simple and complex ideas. Complex = ‘horse’ can be broken down into animal, mammal, quadruped, equine. Simple = ‘yellow’ we can’t break it down any further. Moral terms are simple. The word ‘good’ is indefinable and un-analysable because it is simple and the concept cannot be broken down further. Known by intuition Can’t define Self evident Equine is another word for ‘that which resembles a horse’

The Open-Question Argument What if, for example, you define good as pleasure? That is, ‘good’ is reduced to (means exactly the same things as) pleasure. But if I was then to ask you, “I get pleasure poisoning the water system, but is it good?” then all I am really saying is, “I get pleasure from poisoning the water system, but is it pleasure?” My first question seems to be a valid moral question, whereas the latter question makes no sense at all.

The Open-Question Argument Cont… Put in Moore’s terms, my first question is an ‘open question’ because it makes moral sense to ask it, whereas the latter formulation of the question is a ‘closed question’ and, in fact, isn’t a question at all. Therefore, ‘good’ and ‘pleasure’ cannot mean the same thing! This led Moore to conclude that good cannot be defined by non- ethical terms: Simply put, good is good! If ‘good’ cannot be defined in terms of any natural property it means that good is a mysterious thing indeed. How are we to be aware of goodness if we cannot define it? This is why Moore’s theory is known as intuitionism. We intuit goodness.

What is Naturalistic fallacy? Against naturalism. Good and bad are not natural properties. You cant verify moral statements. You can have open questions.

Moral judgements cannot be proven So, Moore argues that moral judgements cannot be proven empirically. We cannot observe pleasure and then say that goodness is pleasure. W.D. Ross accepted Moore’s version of ethics and also added that in any given situation moral duties or obligations become apparent. These are called prima facie duties. Prima facie means ‘at first appearance’ Ross listed the following as prima facie duties: Keeping a promise, reparation for harm done, gratitude, justice, beneficence, self- improvement and non- maleficence He acknowledged that this list might not be complete. These principles emphasise a personal character of duty rather than one set on certain absolutes.

What are the Strengths and Weaknesses of intuitionism What are the Strengths and Weaknesses of intuitionism? Read page104-5 Assess the strengths and weaknesses of Intuitionism Strengths Intuitionism allows for objective moral values to be identified, and therefore proposes a form of moral realism. It is not a question of dismissing the possibility of any moral facts. It doesn’t propose a subjective or emotive approach to ethics but it does avoid the problems of identifying ethics with a natural property. Intuitionism allows for moral duties and obligations, and so satisfies a moral absolutist. Intuition may be associated with the idea of conscience as a moral guide. Problems with Intuitionism People do intuit and reason to different conclusions and there is no obvious way to resolve their differences. How can we be sure that our intuitions are correct? Is it a gut feeling? Is it God’s direction? It may be considered to be meaningless concept, since it is non-verifiable.

Explain the role of Intuition in Meta-Ethics according to Moore.

Summary G. E. Moore asserted that moral judgements are based on infallible intuitive knowledge of good things. Good is indefinable. ‘Good’ is a simple idea – like ‘yellow’. The naturalistic fallacy is to define an ethical judgement as factual. Moore argued that you can’t use non-moral premise to establish a moral conclusion. Moore asserted many things about good and its indefinability, but he didn’t prove his own case. Ross developed prima facie duties – in a moral dilemma, the various duties or obligations that we have are apparent. In making moral decision, our intuition identifies our prima facie duties, although our actual action isn’t self-evident. He differentiated between things that are right to do and things that are good to do depending on our motivation or intention.