Intuitionism Just ‘know’ that something is ‘good’ G.E. Moore (1873-1958)

Starter Task: What is a horse?

what is yellow?

G.E. Moore Principa Ethica. Moral judgements are based on an infallible knowledge of ‘good’ things. Make a list of what your intuition tells you are ‘good things’ Task:

Moral decision making ‘good’ things Not 'good' things

Moral Debate? ‘good things’ are self evident Only debate about how to bring these things about.

“Good is good” “If I am asked ‘what is good? my answer is that ‘good is good’, and that is the end of the matter” “If I asked ‘how is good to be defined?’ my answer is that ‘it cannot be defined’, and that is all I have to say about it.” G.E. Moore 1903

Good is a simple idea Complex ideas Simple ideas Horse – definable Broken down into smaller ideas Simple ideas Can’t be broken down any further Horse – definable House - definable Yellow is yellow Good is good

horse?

Describe yellow yellow?

Criticising Naturalism Their definition of ethical judgement as fact is fallacy Theological naturalists definition of ‘good’? Gods' Will Hedonist naturalists definition of ‘good’? Pleasure

1st criticism: The ‘Naturalistic Fallacy’ Naturalism confuses a moral judgement (ought) with a non-moral one (is). Can’t go from an ‘is’ to an ‘ought’ Example: I observe playing rugby leads to happiness = ‘is’ Therefore playing rugby is good = ‘ought’

Pleasure = Good ?

Where are Granny’s savings kept? God’s will = Good ?

Simple… ‘Good is Good’ “Everything is what it is and not another thing” Good = good – NOT pleasure. It is a simple idea, so can’t be broken down into pleasure or God’s will.

Quality vs Identity God’s will MAY possess the QUALITY ‘good.’ But it does not have the SAME IDENTITY as ‘good’. Pleasure MAY possess the QUALITY ‘good’ But it does not the have the SAME IDENTITY as ‘good’.

Naturalistic Fallacy The ‘Open Question’ argument Disproves naturalism If a statement still leads to an ‘open question’ then the statement is not valid.

“George Bush is a brother” “is George Bush male?” This is an invalid question – so the original statement is correct

But is the war against terror good? War against terror will lead to saving the lives of others, thereby creating more happiness for the world. But is the war against terror good? This is a meaningful question So the original statement is false. (creating more happiness, cannot therefore mean ‘good’ or we would not be able to ask the question)

Hedonic Naturalistic Fallacy Bringing back the death penalty would bring about more happiness for society as a whole. “But is it right to bring back the death penalty?” Is a meaningful question… …Therefore ‘more happiness’ and ‘right’ do NOT mean the same thing.

Theological Naturalistic Fallacy Killing a mass murderer just before he embarks on his mission would break a commandment… “But is it wrong?” Is meaningful… …Therefore ‘going against God’s will’ and ‘wrong’ can’t be the same thing.

Summary A thing may lead to pleasure… but it is not ‘good’. A thing may break a commandment… but it is not ‘wrong’

2. Morality is NOT a science You cannot find natural laws for ethics ‘good’ is recognised intuitively.

Moral Intuition They cannot be proved. Moral intuitions can’t be wrong.

The ‘good’ All humans know by intuition that “The most valuable things… are certain states of consciousness, which may be described as the pleasures of human relationships, and the enjoyment of beautiful objects”

Moral actions ‘right’ and ‘good’ are things which bring about the end result of indefinable ‘goodness’. (ie better relationships with others, and more beautiful objects to enjoy presumably)

Criticism 1. Moore doesn’t demonstrate his case. The indefinable ‘Good’ is never proved. He claimed that either you agree with his list of indefinable goods, or… you’ve not thought about it enough. 2. Moral argument is merely about which actions bring about these goods. Most philosophers think this is an unreasonable way to summarize moral debate

Intuitionism - Moore Explain why Moore believes ‘good is indefinable’? (use ‘yellow’, ‘horse’, ‘simple, ‘complex’ in your answer) Explain the naturalistic fallacy and how Moore uses it to criticise the naturalists? (use ‘is/ought’ idea; examples of the ‘open question’ in your answer) How else does Moore criticise naturalism? Write a short definition of ‘good things’ according to Moore. How would Moore explain how one decides whether an action is right of wrong? Describe two criticisms of Moore’s view.