Early intuitionism[ edit ] While there were ethical intuitionists in a broad sense at least as far back as Thomas Aquinas , the philosophical school usually labelled as ethical intuitionism developed in Britain in the 17th and 18th centuries. Hare it is questionable whether Kant is an intuitionist. Inspired by this, 20th century philosopher C. Broad would coin the term " deontological ethics " to refer to the normative doctrines associated with intuitionism, leaving the phrase "ethical intuitionism" free to refer to the epistemological doctrines.
|Published (Last):||24 June 2004|
|PDF File Size:||20.93 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||14.4 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Early intuitionism[ edit ] While there were ethical intuitionists in a broad sense at least as far back as Thomas Aquinas , the philosophical school usually labelled as ethical intuitionism developed in Britain in the 17th and 18th centuries.
Hare it is questionable whether Kant is an intuitionist. Inspired by this, 20th century philosopher C. Broad would coin the term " deontological ethics " to refer to the normative doctrines associated with intuitionism, leaving the phrase "ethical intuitionism" free to refer to the epistemological doctrines. This is a mistake, Prichard argued, both because it is impossible to derive any statement about what one ought to do from statements not concerning obligation even statements about what is good , and because there is no need to do so since common sense principles of moral obligation are self-evident.
Prichard was influenced by G. Moore , whose Principia Ethica argued famously that goodness was an indefinable, non-natural property of which we had intuitive awareness. Moore originated the term " the naturalistic fallacy " to refer to the alleged error of confusing goodness with some natural property, and he deployed the Open Question Argument to show why this was an error.
Unlike Prichard, Moore thought that one could derive principles of obligation from propositions about what is good. Ethical intuitionism suffered a dramatic fall from favor by the middle of the century, due in part to the influence of logical positivism , in part to the rising popularity of naturalism in philosophy, and in part to philosophical objections based on the phenomenon of widespread moral disagreement.
Robert Audi is one of the main supporters of ethical intuitionism in our days. His book, The Good in the Right, claims to update and strengthen Rossian intuitionism and to develop the epistemology of ethics. Furthermore, authors writing on normative ethics often accept methodological intuitionism as they present allegedly obvious or intuitive examples or thought experiments as support for their theories. Definitional issues[ edit ] Because it was not until Sidgwick that it was clear there were several distinct theses sharing the label "ethical intuitionism", the term has developed many different connotations.
This is liable to cause confusion; for example, G. Ethical non-naturalism , the view that these evaluative facts cannot be reduced to natural fact. Classical foundationalism , i. The view that moral properties are "simple" as held by G. The view that moral truths are knowable only by intuition. However, none of these positions are essential to the view; most ethical intuitionists such as G.
Moore and W. Ross simply happen to have held those views as well. Moore being notable exceptions. Audi hence uses the label "intuitivists" to refer to people who are intuitionists without labeling themselves as such. On this broad understanding of intuitionism, there are only a few ways someone doing moral philosophy might not count as an intuitionist.
First, they might really refrain from relying on intuitions in moral philosophy altogether say, by attempting to derive all moral claims from claims about what certain individuals desire. Second, they might deny foundationalism in favor of say coherentism. Rational intuition versus moral sense[ edit ] Some use the term "ethical intuitionism" in moral philosophy to refer to the general position that we have some non-inferential moral knowledge see Sinnott-Armstrong, a and b —that is, basic moral knowledge that is not inferred from or based on any proposition.
However, it is important to distinguish between empiricist versus rationalist models of this. Some, thus, reserve the term "ethical intuitionism" for the rationalist model and the term "moral sense theory" for the empiricist model see Sinnott-Armstrong, b, pp. However, the terminology is not ultimately important, so long as one keeps in mind the relevant differences between these two views.
Generally speaking, rationalist ethical intuitionism models the acquisition of such non-inferential moral knowledge on a priori, non-empirical knowledge, such as knowledge of mathematical truths; whereas moral sense theory models the acquisition of such non-inferential moral knowledge on empirical knowledge, such as knowledge of the colors of objects see moral sense theory.
Rational intuition[ edit ] The rationalist version of ethical intuitionism models ethical intuitions on a priori , non-empirically-based intuitions of truths, such as basic truths of mathematics. Take for example the belief that two minus one is one. This piece of knowledge is often thought to be non-inferential in that it is not grounded in or justified by some other proposition or claim. Rather, one who understands the relevant concepts involved in the proposition that two minus one is one has what one might call an "intuition" of the truth of the proposition.
One intuits the truth of the proposition, rather than inferring it. Some rationalist ethical intuitionists characterize moral "intuitions" as a species of belief for example, Audi, , pp.
Others characterize "intuitions" as a distinct kind of mental state, in which something seems to one to be the case whether one believes it or not as a result of intellectual reflection. Michael Huemer , for example, defines "intuition" as a sort of seeming: Reasoning sometimes changes how things seem to us. But there is also a way things seem to us prior to reasoning; otherwise, reasoning could not get started. That is, an intuition that p is a state of its seeming to one that p that is not dependent on inference from other beliefs and that results from thinking about p, as opposed to perceiving, remembering, or introspecting.
An ethical intuition is an intuition whose content is an evaluative proposition. Main article: Moral sense theory Another version—what one might call the empiricist version—of ethical intuitionism models non-inferential ethical knowledge on sense perception. This version involves what is often called a "moral sense". According to moral sense theorists, certain moral truths are known via this moral sense simply on the basis of experience, not inference.
One way to understand the moral sense is to draw an analogy between it and other kinds of senses. Beauty, for example, is something we see in some faces, artworks and landscapes. We can also hear it in some pieces of music. We clearly do not need an independent aesthetic sense faculty to perceive beauty in the world.
Our ordinary five senses are quite enough to observe it, though merely observing something beautiful is no guarantee that we can observe its beauty.
In the same way, a color-blind person is not necessarily able to perceive the green color of grass although he is capable of vision. Suppose we give a name to this ability to appreciate the beauty in things we see: one might call it the aesthetic sense. This aesthetic sense does not come automatically to all people with perfect vision and hearing, so it is fair to describe it as something extra, something not wholly reducible to vision and hearing.
As the aesthetic sense informs us about what is beautiful, we can analogically understand the moral sense as informing us of what is good. People with a functioning moral sense get a clear impression of wrongness when they see puppies being kicked, for example.
Tinyu PDF Me
All of the classic intuitionists maintained that basic moral propositions are self-evident—that is, evident in and of themselves—and so can be known without the need of any argument. Price distinguishes intuition from two other grounds of knowledge—namely, immediate consciousness or feeling on the one hand, and argumentation, on the other. Argumentation, or deduction, is knowledge that is ultimately derived from what is immediately apprehended, either by sensation or by the understanding. It shares immediacy with intuition, but unlike intuition does not have as its object a self-evident proposition.
Maumi In the Preface to the second edition of Principia Moore offers an alternative definition that is suggested in chapter two of Principia. Sidgwick took disagreement seriously, and thought that if there was significant disagreement about the truth of some apparently self-evident moral proposition, then that casts doubt on whether that proposition really is self-evident. I accept those things on intellectual grounds. Furthermore, although people might disagree about the permissibility of boiling lobsters alive, we may assume that they agree that pain is a bad thing, and the infliction of undeserved pain is prima facie wrong. If we take beliefs to be prima facie justified on the basis of appearances, then it is unclear why intuitive beliefs should be thought to require checking, in the absence of any positive grounds for doubting them. If people are asked to consider Switch first, and Bridge second, they tend to say that it is permissible to pull the lever in Switch but not permissible to push the man onto intuitipnism track in Bridge.
Intuitionism in Ethics