'Explain the meta-ethic of Intuitionism'

Intuitionism says that objective moral laws exist independently of us. However, they can be discovered by using our minds in an intuitive way.

Intuitionism is a priori because it believes that understanding morality is not about prior experience but about knowledge that is innate.

G E Moore said that just as yellow is indefinable so good is. It is a simple concept just as maths is.

'Good', for him was also a self-evident truth. Therefore, it is not reliant on rationalism to be worked out. Once we try to apply reason, error becomes possible. It just 'is'.

G E Moore had two questions in Principa Ethica. These were what things ought to exist for their own sake and what acts ought we to perform? In answer to these, he said that the things that should exist for their own sake were things that were intrinsically good.

Therefore, we should perform actions that bring about this intrinsic good.

Intuitionism is sometimes called ethical non-naturalism. This is because although it believes that morals exist objectively, it does not think that they can be found out empirically. It is just there like numbers exist. Therefore, is also called 'non metaphysical moral realism'.

Moore believed that because good cannot be defined, it is therefore sui generis'. This refers to the idea that it is without comparison.

In addition to this, Moore said that although intuitive ability is innate, there was a difference between intuition and self-evident truths. He said that intuition was how we recognise that things are self-evident. For something to be self-evident it does not require thought.

We can say that intuition is the conscious state in which something is recognised as self-evident.

Conscious intuition reveals laws that are objective and self-evidently moral. These laws are still self evident regardless of if anyone recognises this or not.

Richard Norman said that Moore wanted to demonstrate that good was not reliant on context but good in themselves. As well as this, Moore wanted to show what things are good for no other reason than simply because they are good.

This is why Norman said 'It is simply a belief which one knows to be true, but which one has no reasons'.

The last two chapters of Moore's book is about what we should do, as well as what things are good.

Moore said that we should carry out acts that has the obligation to do goo. Our duty is to perform actions that produce good and avoid evil.

This is not Utilitarianism despite how similar they both seem because both ethical theories have a different view on the value of the consequences.

For something to be intrinsically good, Moore said they would still be good if they existed independently and abstractly. He said that these were human intercourse and appreciation of beauty.

As well as this, Moore identified groups of evils.

In addition to this, Moore recognised that the recognition of morality needed a mature mind. The reason why some people get the wrong ideas about morality is not about recognition of good, but how knowledge is put into action.

Another thinker who contributed to Intuitionism was Ross. He said that through our intuition, we could establish prima facie duties. These were to be prioritised. The prima facie duties included fidelity, or promise keeping, preventing harm, justice etc.

As well as Ross, another thinker who contributed to Intuitionism was Prichard. He believed that duty or obligation was intuitively known, not good. Therefore, moral knowledge was sui generis and separate from reason.

In answer to Moore's previous question of what should we do, Prichard said that has already been answered. The idea of morality is contained in duty. We instinctively know what to do.

For example, Prichard would have said that because we know to call for help for someone who has been involved in an accident, so it is proof that we instinctively and intuitively know what the right thing to do it.

Duty is underivative, irreducible and indefinable in 3 ways.

1) Duty says that it is sui generis. It cannot be derived empirically.

2) Duty cannot be extracted from moral judgements or truths that have a non-moral origin

3) Duties are specific and not consequentialist.

If these duties conflict, there is no clear solution. Rather it is down to an intuitive judgement about the stronger duty.

Lastly, Prichard believed that ethical debate was possible. To illustrate this, he spoke about two types of reasoning; general and moral.

General is the process of using empirical evidence to present a logical argument. Often these will take into account certain factors. These are called preliminaries. However, no matter how strong they may appear to be, they cannot be the driving force. For example, if a person was considering an abortion they may consider the cost (if not in the UK)

Moral reasoning though is when a person recognises what their duty is. Prichard said it is found in our unreflective consciousness. So for the person considering an abortion, they could believe that their duty is to protect life.

Prichard wanted to show that general reasoning could not be the driving force in ethical dilemma because if this is the case, the process because one of consequentialism.

30/30-A*