intuitionism Flashcards
how did moore claim we know moral truths
our intution
we just know what is right or wrong
we have a feeling
- He says that moral truths are just something we know immediately regardless of if something is true or false
-He said that we recognise good and that’s how we know what is the correct moral truth and the correct thing for us to do he also pointed out out that it isnt the same as an individual having a feeling or opinion, moral facts exist independently of us and are objectively knowable through out intuitions.
-
why did moore say that good was undefinable
- Moore said that moral judgements are self evident things based on an infallible knowledge of the most alive this and that they are not possible to be proven wrong because they are evaluative not factual
- It is unanswerable because good is indefinable evause it is a simple not composite idea, its like the colour yellow you cannot physically explain the features of the colour yellow because you just know what it is, compared to a horse when you can name features of a horse like the legs or the mane etc
-He said that “ good is good that is the end of the matter, it cannot be defined and that’s all I have to say about that’ he argues that trail the philosophers arguing about what was morally good was stupid becau they had been trying ti argue a unanswerable question.
- how did Ross develop the theory ?
- Ross developed the theory hi book the right and the good and he said that he accepted moors argument that goodness cannot be defined in natural terms and that good and obligation is undefinable.
- He believes that it is distinguished by what a our duties should focus on “ our primary duty:. - Ross develops 7 prima facie duties which include, promise keeping, recreation for harm, gratitude, justice, beneficence, self improvement and non malfience.
- So when in a. moral dilemma we know which obligation is right and that the action is clear. - - Our intuition helps its know our greater duty and what we should and shouldn’t do. He says that if there are any moral debated its because some of our intuitions are more developed than others and we have a greater understanding of what is right and what is wrong .
- How did Prichard develop the theory?
-Pritarch in his his article does moral philosophy rest on a mistake.
- Pritarch developed the theory by agreeing with some parts or Moore bu also expanding by saying that what we Inuit is our dense of duty or obligation (what we ought to do .
-Eh agreed with Hume when saying that we cant derive an ought from anis and no empirical study could help use make this leap. - He also said in his article “ does oral philosophy rest on a mistake” that arguing that we have a sense of fut of obligation is immediate. The mistake he believes we make thinking that we can use reason to work our what we ought to do.
- He also helped by distinguishing between general thing and moral thinking.
- He was that general thinking is about the preliminaries that helps a person gather the full facts but it cannot bring a person to a conclusion about what they ought to do so this is where moral thinking comes into place. - Moral thinking Is about recognising an obligation for unreflective consciousness not facts about the world and having engaged in general thinking our obligation becomes clear through intuition.
- pritarch said that is we ever stat to doubt our intuition we shouldn’t start to go back to reasoning and instead imagine ourselves in that situation and let our intention take over and that’s what you should do and we will always know what we ought to do .
- Finally he developed the concept of epistemic intuition which focuses on the knowledge of the moral truths and that some intuition differs but we will always know which is the right one.
why is moores appraoch known as consquentialists?
- moore thought the moral worth of an action is determined by the good effect it brings - so we need to decide what these effect are
- he thought the good was whatever produced the maximum number of goods for the most - we know this by intuition not a calculus - we have a feeling
why is prchard and ross intuitionlism deontological?
However Ross and Pritarch believed that the value of what is right lies in the at and not the consequences and they emphasise duty and obligation.
If moral truths are innate how do Moore, Pritarch and Ross explain moral disagreements.
- Pritchard would say that if a moral disagreements came along we haven’t used both out general thinking and intuition correctly and we having thought about ti fully as we could’ve done. He also would said that we need all the thinking to gain the knowledge and facts which allow our inution to take over so if we start to have these moral disagreements it means someone hasn’t fully thought and doesn’t fully the facts that we need to use.
- However Moore and Ross would say that if there is a moral disagreement then someone isnt morally develop. Moore would argue that only a mature mind is necessary to get to the truth and if they haven’t fully developed then there would be a lack of correct intuition.
for intuitionism how are objective moral laws exist independanlty of human beinsg?
- there are basic self evidence moral fscts that cannot be defined with refrence to the real world
what is intution
- an immediate intellectual awareness
- not demonsyated with emprirical evidence
- not based on anything rational
- recognition of self evididence
- diffrent from beleif
- innate
why does intuition need a mature mind so not infaliable
- intuition becomes clear and se;f evidenct with the growth of maturity
- some poelpe are more devloped then others
what is prima face
based on first impression, an initial reason
how does intuition allow for objective(based on facts) moral values
- intuition knows the facts about what is good then reason works out how to achieve it
- even an inmatuire mind still has an intuition it may just not be as correct
- it is our duty to know what to do with our intution to get th most good out of it
how do we recognise what we ought to do by intuition?
- our feelings of obligation are immediate intutiion
they are basic
we cannot produce evidence or reasoning for why we shpuld obey they - gathering evidence tu support intuition results in deeper uncertainity
the best evidence is if we feel like same obligation in the future
challanges to intuitionism
- mackie says there is two ways we fail to prove the existence of objective moral knowlege
1. sense of obligation is uttely unlike the way we gain knowledge in any other area
2. objevtive values are objects or qualities completley unlike anything else that can be foudn in the universe
hw says tat intutionism has no basis in empricial knowledge. in any other situation if i cliam somehting as a fact i would be expected to produce evidence to support it. our apprent intutition coudl be psychological conditioning from society - intutivbe truths can differ widely: diffren intutionlists have diffrent talkes on what our moral obligation is so how should we decide what is right if both have diffren intutition
- no obvious way to solve conflicst: how do we decide bwteen intutions if they are both mature and well educated
