Intuitionism- A good way of understanding ethics?

Intuitionism- A good way of understanding ethics? 

Basic intuitionism is based on the premise/idea that moral propositions are self-evident. What does it mean for a proposition to be self-evident? A self-evident proposition is one that doesn’t require evidence, justification or an argument to be accepted (this does not mean that there is not evidence for this though). Therefore, when intuitionists argue that moral propositions are self-evident, they argue that we know some things are wrong, and we do not need justification to argue that it is wrong because the proposition that “murder is wrong” is self-evident. 

This means that we can recognise a “good” or a “bad” action when we see it, but that we cannot define what “good” is.

For example, the intuitionist would not need a reason to understand the holocaust was a morally abhorrent thing because the intuitionist argues that we all know what is wrong.

Some significant intuitionists-

Price

Price argues that self-evident truths are “incapable of proof”. For example, he would argue that although we know murder is wrong, we cannot prove that murder is objectively wrong.

Price insists that all reasoning and knowledge in ethics must ultimately rest on propositions that are not inferred from other premises (in other words, propositions that aren’t reliant on evidence or reasoning), this means that reasoning and knowledge in ethics cannot rely on premises of experience or empirical evidence. For ethical intuitions this non-inferred basis of knowledge is self-evident truth grasped by intuition. 

W.D. Ross

“[T]he moral convictions of thoughtful and well-educated people are the data of ethics, just as sense-perceptions are the data of natural science” – W.D. Ross

Ross was an intuitionist who based his moral theory on moral convictions- He gives a list of right actions- the prima facie duties- Fidelity, reparation, gratitude, justice, helping others, self-improvement and not harming others.

Is intuitionism a good theory of meta-ethics?

The intuitionist viewpoint certainly has some strengths- I think the most significant of these is that from a young age we all have a similar understanding of right and wrong. For example, we’ve all heard a child in the school playground scream “it’s not fair”, supporting the idea that we all have the same idea of justice as we all have an understanding from a very young age of whether something is “fair” or not fair.

The intuitionist viewpoint is also supported by these reasons-

• The world follows the same moral system, in the Nuremberg trials many members of the Nazi Party of 1940s Germany committed a “crime against humanity” where they were punished for what we would all agree was morally abhorrent.
• If you observe the world you find people generally have this idea of good and evil, that we all agree murder is wrong, theft is wrong, and kindness is good. We do not provide each other with developed arguments for why theft is morally wrong, we simply know that theft is wrong.

There is one glaringly obvious issue with intuitionism though- the issue that there are so many disagreements between humans of what is right and wrong. Turn on your TV and you will likely be confronted by disagreements on whether it is moral to carry out IVF, whether it is moral to have an abortion or whether it is moral for a country to enforce Capital Punishment and the list goes on… This is an issue for intuitionism because if what is right and wrong is just intuition, self-evident and recognisable without the need for evidence, why do we disagree on so many moral issues?

Intuitionism certainly has some good and convincing aspects and personally, I think it should be considered by everyone as a noble effort of answering questions in meta-ethics.

Johnstheology.blogspot.com