Ethical Intuitionism is a book (hardcover release: , paperback release: ) by University of Colorado philosophy professor Michael Huemer. Michael Huemer. University of Colorado, Boulder. Abstract. This book defends a form of ethical intuitionism, according to which (i) there are objective moral. In recent years there has been a resurgence of interest in Ethical Intuitionism, ( ), Bedke (), Huemer (), Shafer-Landau (), Stratton-lake.
|Published (Last):||23 October 2009|
|PDF File Size:||2.13 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||12.43 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
This is a quite general problem in the theory of analysis, so if it applies to seemingly informative analyses of goodness, then that would reveal nothing distinctive about naturalistic analyses of moral terms. It expresses rather a certain philosophical disappointment that a definition can’t be offered. We need reasons for believing our ethical intuitions, or the faculty of intuition in general, to be reliable. Although their view is about the nature of moral properties, they often put their point in terms of moral concepts or ideas, and maintained that these concepts are either unanalysable, or if analysable, not analysable wholly in terms of natural concepts.
Some recent intuitionists have shied away from the view that certain moral propositions are self-evident and have, instead, argued that all the intuitionist needs is the claim that intuitions, understood as intellectual seemings, provide non-inferential justification for some of our moral beliefs Huemerand Bedke —though Bedke rejects intuitionism. The second point designed to show that the argument must be wrong is its self-refuting character.
The only difference between ethical intuitions and non-ethical intuitions is in what they are about–and that cannot be taken as grounds for the queerness Mackie sees, huemet we are to reject ethical knowledge merely for being ethical.
The discussion is rather convoluted and sometimes a little hard to follow, but these are muddy waters indeed. Monists, in this area as in others, can be reductivist or eliminativist. The second consists of our initial moral responses to particular moral scenarios, such as the trolley cases. Appearances have propositional contents–things they represent to be the case–but they are not beliefs, as can be seen from the intelligibility of, ‘The arch seems to be taller than it is wide, but I don’t think it is’.
The distorting factors that Sinnott-Armstrong mentions are the undercutting defeaters of the justification of most of our moral beliefs. When we think of something as good we do not think of it merely as having certain effects on us, or as picking ethicl certain surface properties the property of goodness has, but think of it as having a distinctive characteristic. In delivering that verdict, it is only fair to warn the reader that I needed no persuading, being already a convinced ethical intuitionist.
5 Moral Knowledge
Intuitionism does not hold that from ‘I have an intuition that p ‘ one may infer ‘ p ‘; nor does the principle of Phenomenal Conservatism hold that ‘It seems to me that p ‘ is a reason for ‘ p ‘.
We could then adopt a familiar principle of doxastic conservatism that says that if we are inclined to believe that pwe are justified in so doing, unless countervailing evidence comes to light. There are three replies to this objection. Huemer himself makes the important point that he does not regard the classification with which he starts as the most metaphysically illuminating. If intuitions rather than our understanding of their content justify us in believing that content, then intuitionists should understand a self-evident proposition as follows:.
If the moral property intuitionjsm being good, for instance, could be defined in wholly psychological, biological, or sociological terms, then moral truths would turn out to be either psychological, biological or sociological truths, which could then be discovered by empirical research by the appropriate science.
Yellowness is something lemons, the sun, and so on have in common; so what they have in common is not merely a word or idea. So it looks like we can find two notions of intuition ethica, intuitionist thought—one understood as an intellectual seeming or apprehension, and intuitiomism other as a pre-theoretical, non-inferred, firmly held belief or conviction.
But there is no such universal assent. In any case there is nothing in the notion of a self-evident proposition that rules out justification or argument for that proposition. Why do you believe the wall is green? The laws of logic ethiacl thus examples of non-conventional, objective facts that are known independently of experience.
So there are no self-evident moral propositions. Such propositions could pace Price be believed without an intuition of them.
But there is also a sense of ‘seems’, which we might call its doxastic sense, in which to say that, for example, a certain arithmetical result seems to be correct, is to be inclined to believe or judge that it is correct. Suppose I seem to see a glass of water on the table.
One might doubt that there are any such reasons. But justification comes in degrees: If moral facts are non-natural facts, as intuitionists maintain, and non-natural properties lack causal powers, then moral intuitions cannot be caused by the corresponding moral facts, as, e.
So this question is closed. The role of ethicsl 13and 5 in the theory of justification is that of conditions under which certain beliefs–respectively, those expressed by 24and 6 — require no evidencerather than that of evidence supporting those beliefs. Not all intuitionists agreed with Moore that nothing could be said about the nature of this characteristic though they all agreed that this is a non-natural property.
Finally, Ethical Intuitionists allowed that various other factors can lead to disagreement. As this example illustrates, an initial appearance can be overruled by other appearances this does not mean the initial appearance goes away, but only that we don’t believe itand only by other appearances. It may, however, be pressed that the causal impotency of moral properties causes problems for the analogy of intellectual seemings with perceptual seemings.
One of the great ironies of philosophy is that this rationalistic methodology is commonly employed by empiricists. Otherwise, intuitions cannot justify our moral beliefs. If we eliminated this convention, A would be rendered false, with no change in its meaning.
Even the arguments of a philosophical skeptic who says we aren’t justified in believing anything rest upon the skeptic’s own beliefs, which are based upon what seems to the skeptic to be true. Since this is such a striking omission, it is worth asking where Kantian theories would fit in Huemer’s taxonomy.
Statement A is made true by convention in a substantive sense: Second, intuition is a way in which we are aware of self-evident propositions, whereas self-evident propositions are the things that can be known in this way.
Ethical Intuitionism (book) – Wikipedia
All I can do by way of ‘showing something to be true’ in an article or book is to write down a series of sentences. Sinnott-Armstrong would say that in order for the undercutting defeater the 1 st stranger’s comment to be defeated by the factory worker’s claim that the stranger is a trickster, the factory worker’s comment must provide McCoy with a reason to think that his belief was formed reliably.
In each case, the appearance is intellectual; you do not perceive that these things are the case with your eyes, ears, etc.