Intuitionism Flashcards
Intuitionism?
n philosophy, “a priori” refers to knowledge derived from reason rather than experience. G.E. Moore argued that “good” is a simple, indefinable concept recognized through intuition rather than analysis. He posed two key questions for moral philosophy: what ought to exist for its own sake, and what actions should be performed. He claimed that intrinsically good things exist independently and are recognized intuitively.
Intuitionism, or ethical non-naturalism, posits that moral principles exist in a way similar to abstract concepts like numbers, distinct from empirical observation. This perspective asserts that goodness is unique (sui generis) and universally understood, not based on subjective perceptions. Moore distinguished intuition as a means of recognizing self-evident truths rather than empirical claims, emphasizing that the understanding of goodness is innate and objective for all moral agents.
Objective moral values?
Moore focused on two key questions: 1) What should we do? and 2) What things are good? He argued that moral obligations inherently include the duty to produce the greatest amount of good, aligning somewhat with utilitarianism.
Moore proposed that true goods can be identified as those that would be considered good even in isolation, such as pure friendship and aesthetic beauty. He acknowledged other goods but noted their complexity in the natural world.
He categorized evils into three groups:
Absolute evils, which are always linked to negative enjoyment or admiration;
Mixed evils, which depend on context;
Pains and suffering.
Moore’s framework resonates with Aristotle’s virtues, reflecting his analysis of simple versus complex goods.
First class evils?
s consists of those evils which are deemed to always include enjoyment or admiring contemplation of things that are themselves that are evil/ugly
second class / mixed evils?
something that could be bad but depends on the context
The third class?
appears to be the class of pains and suffering
Intuition and maturity?
Moore posited that knowledge of good is innate and a priori, implying a sense of infallibility regarding self-evident truths. However, any fallibility in intuition relates to how effectively this knowledge is applied in practice.
He believed that one “ought to do” actions that maximize good, based on an awareness of intrinsic goodness in things like aesthetic beauty and personal relationships. He acknowledged the existence of mixed goods, reflecting the complexities of the empirical world.
Ross emphasized the need for gradual awakening to our innate moral intuitions, suggesting that understanding moral truths requires mental maturity. Prichard argued that this intuitive awareness varies among individuals, with some possessing a more developed sense of intuition than others.
Ought as indefinable?
Pritchard, like Moore, argued that moral knowledge is indefinable, but he emphasized the intuitive sense of obligation or duty as the core of moral insight, aligning his view more with deontological ethics. In cases of moral conflict, individuals learn to weigh obligations, developing a more refined sense of right and wrong over time.
He maintained that moral knowledge is sui generis and distinct from reason or empirical influence, rejecting Moore’s consequentialism. For Pritchard, our moral intuition reveals what we should do, asserting that moral truth lies in our innate sense of duty when faced with decisions.
He posited that duty is an irreducible concept, similar to Moore’s notion of goodness. Pritchard argued that normative truths about duty are self-evident and not derived from general consequentialist principles. Duties can conflict, and when they do, there are no systematic rules for resolution—only intuitive judgments about which duty holds greater weight.
General vs moral thinking?
Pritchard distinguishes between general reasoning and moral reasoning. General reasoning relies on empirical evidence to form logical arguments, but it does not inherently impose moral obligations. While it can highlight various claims, including potential moral duties, it should not dominate our understanding of moral obligations.
Moral reasoning, by contrast, arises from intuitive thought, allowing individuals to recognize their duties directly. Pritchard argues that this intuitive sense of duty is more reliable than general reasoning, which risks distorting moral obligations, particularly through a consequentialist lens. He warns that general reasoning could misinterpret duties, such as the duty to keep promises, undermining their true moral significance.
Herka?
“In trying to explain the duty to keep promises, consequentalism destroys it.”
Moral thinking does not work in this way because it is intuitive and self-evident”
What does he mean
Pritchard emphasizes that while moral issues can be complex, we must avoid allowing general reasoning to distort moral phenomena into consequentialism. His intuitionism aligns with Descartes’ principle of skepticism, suggesting that moral reasoning is validated through doubt. Thus, general reasoning should serve to support and confirm our intuitive insights rather than evaluate them.
Kaufman quote?
: “Pritchard thinks that modern moral philosophies primary aim is to find a way to demonstrate that what we think is our duty really is obligatory.”
Lack of proof/argument from Queerness ( unusual or weird)
J.L. Mackie argued against ethical intuitionism, asserting that there are no objective ethical values. He contended that intuitionism leads to implausible and odd conclusions, undermining the theory’s credibility.
Mackie quotes?
“If there were objective values, then there would be entities or qualities of a very strange sort, utterly different from anything else in the universe.”
“ If we were aware of [objective moral truths, it would have to be by some special faculty of moral perception or intuition utterly different from our normal ways “
Mackies?
Mackie’s empirically grounded objection to intuitionism argues that it contradicts how we understand existence. Citing Hume, he asserts that knowledge cannot motivate the will, concluding that moral judgments based on intuition misrepresent genuine moral thinking.
Conflicting contuitive data?
Intuitivism faces challenges due to the absence of universally established duties, leading to differing moral intuitions among individuals. This variability complicates moral problem-solving, as two people may arrive at different conclusions in the same dilemma. Within intuitionist philosophy, disagreements exist on fundamental duties—such as between Moore’s consequentialism and Pritchard’s deontology. Critics argue that the lack of consensus undermines the notion that moral propositions are self-evident; if they were, universal agreement would exist, which it does not.
