cognitivism: intuitionism

Question 1

GE Moore- moral realist

Answer 1

-criticised naturalism
-he said we have an infallible intuitive knowledge of good things
-dont need to observe to know somethings wrong, u just do, good cannot be defined but is known intuitively
-good is non-natural-similiar to form of the good-not subjective bc we can perceive the good

Question 2

GEM- simple vs complex

Answer 2

-complex=’horse’ can be broken down into animal, mammal etc
-simple=’yellow’ can’t break it down any further
-moral statements=simple
-‘good’ is indefinable + analysable bc the concept can’t be broken down further

Question 3

open question argument

Answer 3

-pleasure and good cannot be interchangeable terms
-pleasure+good can’t replace each other
-

Question 4

Moore said ethical language is…

Answer 4

….cognitive, it expresses beliefs which can be true/false
-When making an ethical statement like “Hitler was wrong” this expresses a person’s belief that they gained through intuition.

Question 5

franz Brentano

Answer 5

-influenced Moore n said we view everything w/biased perceptions
“Good is good, and that is the end of the matter.”

Question 6

ha pritchard

Answer 6

-working out right/wrong is our duty + use our intuition to do so
-feels more deontoligical compared to Moores teleological view
-when people disagree on morality, one’s thinking is less developed (weak assertion)how do we develop it?
2 types of thinking: reason + intuition
-eg euthanasia

Question 7

WD Ross

Answer 7

-moral obligations
-accepts that duties conflict but says we have the ‘prima facie duties’, such as keeping promises, fairness and benevolence among the 7.

Question 8

problem of Pritchard

Answer 8

-what happens if there’s a conflict in obligation?
-must look at situation n decide which obligation is greater
-but if your moral thinking is not developed, how can u do this?

Question 9

Mackie: argument for queerness

Answer 9

-he objects intuitionists claim that morality exists objectively to be detected

-metaphysical: how could moral qualities ‘exists’? what sort of things would they be?
-they would be very queer objects-implausible
-epistemological: what special ability/capacity would we have to have to recognise them? does r brain have a moral sensor?
-motivational: even if u could object goodness, y would it motivate u to anything? if it does motivate u is it only bc something additional has been added to it

Question 10

GEM “good is simply good,…

Answer 10

and that is the end of the matter”