Intuitionism

Unlike naturalism, intuition believes that the ideas we have about ethics is prior to experience and not as a result. This will be explored further.

Moore is a thinker who is often linked with intuitionism

Moore believed that good was a simple concept that was indefinable. It just 'is' and can be recognised by using our intuition independent of anything else. It is incapable of proof. Moore said that there are 2 key questions that we need to ask:

1) What kind of things ought to just exist?

2) What kind of actions should be perform.

In answer to 1), he said that the things that just exist are those things that are intrinsically good. We should hen perform actions that bring about this intrinsic good and this can be supported with empirical evidence.

Intuitionism is often called 'ethical non-naturalism' because it says that we don't need experience. However, it is not a metaphysical approach even thought it is about instinctively and believes moral principles are 'there' just as number exist. It is also called 'non-physical moral realism'.

Moore said that the word 'good' is not meaningless even though it cannot be defined (it is not verification). It just means that you cannot paraphrase or say anything else but the word good to describe thing. It is unique (sui generis in latin) (it also makes a pretty nerdy pickup line if you find that that is a way to memorize it)

What's more (or should I say what's MOORE) good is objective and self-evident. This means that when something is good, you instinctively know because your intuition tells you.

You need to make the distinction between the self-evident things and intuition. Moore said that intuition is the way that we recognise when something is self-evident.

Conscious intuition reveals objective truths that are self-evident. Some people may not see it as self-evident but is still a truth independently regardless of if it is recognised or not.

Richard Norman said that by explaining what type of philosopher Moore said he was, Moore also said that intuitionism was different in two ways.

1) Intuitionism is not about what actions are right but what actions are good in themselves. It is not about what is right depending on the context but because you instinctively know

2) there is not way we can know that. It is good because it's good because it's good.

The last two chapters of Moore's Principia Ethica asks 1) what should we do? 2) what things are good?

Moore said that we should do our moral obligation or duty because that is good.

We must perform actions that cause more good to exist.

This sounds like Utilitarianism but it is not. Utilitarianism was concerned with pleasure but Intuitionism says good, because good is indefinable so you can't say pleasure.

Moore said that the intrinsic good is human intercourse, or interaction between people such as friendships and family and the enjoyment of beautiful objects (again, a pretty nerdy pickup line)

Moore also said that there are three types of evil

1) admiring things that are evil or ugly.

2) mixed evils.

3) plain evils.

Intuitionism however need a nature mind. After all, you could say you are applying your mind intuitively but it could be infallible.

Ross

Ross aaid that intuition can be used to work out our prima facie duties such as fidelity and justice or kepeing a promise. These should be prioritized over everything else.

However he said that there is a need for a gradual awakening towards thig innate intutitive awareness and said that self-evident insights are not completely obvious from the beginning or our lives but when we reach mental maturity.

Prichard

Prichard said that moral knoweldge was indefinable but not the 'good' that was the basis of intuitive moral insight. It was the obligation to do our duty. This approach was deonotlogical. When there are moral conflicts were must decide on the greater obligation and develop an advanced intutive sense of what to do.

Prichard said that moral knowledge was unique and sui generis and seperated from reason and empirical evidence.

He said that Moore's idea of 'acting to bring about the greatest amount of good' was wrong and moral intution can be found in our sense of obligation or sense of duty. Through this, you intuitively know what the right thing to do is. Our question of 'what should be do' has already been answered.

Priahrd said that duty was underiviative (comes from nowhere, unique) indefinable and irreducible (you can't reduce it) just like Moore's good and yellow in 3 ways.

1) Duty is sui generis and self evident. Where Good is irreducible, duty was too.

2) Truths of duty have no-moral origin. Duty is what duty is.

3) Duties are specific and is not good because of the consequence it might bring about but it is good because it is your duty.

However they are no rules for deciding between duties if there is a conflict. It is more because of which duty you think is stronger.

Prichard said that there are 2 ways of thinking; general and moral.

General reasoning is using the empirical world to present a logical argument. Appreciation of certain factors are called preliminaries. Such as, if i was deciding whether to euthanaisa an elderly family member i would have to take into account their pain, if they said that wanted it etc. But Prichard said that these, no matter how strong, cannot hold obligation. General reasoning may give different claims but the ultimate claim may be the ultimate moral duty but doesnt have to be.

Moral reasoning is when you recognise your duty using inutitve thought. It is present in the unreflective consiousness. You dont have to think about what you're doing

Prichard said that there was a danger of people overthinking. He said that doing duty is not because of consequentialism. We must be careful because general reasoning can distort moral phenomena and then turn it into consequentialism.

Challenges:

JL Mackies said that there are no objective values that cane be known and verified. He said that there is no proof that moral intuition exists. This is know that the arguent from queerness. He said that intution would be different, rather like God is different and somewhat unknowable. He said that the idea that moral judgements are made and solved with intution is a 'travesty of moral thinking'

Prichard and Ross's idea that the best thing to do is duty does not take into account the fact that people have different duties and often this willl depend on the situation.

Even intutionist philosophers cannot agree of what duties and obligations are universal.