• Banno
    23.1k
    The original title for this was Are Moore's intuitions a form of Wittgenstein's hinge propositions?, and it was in Epistemology. I'm re-naming, extended and moving it to attract a bit more attention.

    An Ethical question that might just as well be placed in epistemology.

    Hinge propositions are those on which a language game hangs. Ethics is a loose collection of language games...

    For Moore an intuition is a proposition incapable of proof. "Here is a hand".

    So is Moore's intuitionism compatible with Wittgenstein's view of language? What would it look like to treat intuitionism as Wittgenstein treated Moore's hands?

    IN On certainty Wittgenstein points out various issues with Moore's defence of common sense epistemology. Moore held up his hand and said "here is a hand".

    I understand, from my lean reading of Moore, that he thought something similar about ethics; that we had a conviction that some things were good, others not, and that this conviction was fundamental.

    I'm developing some sympathy for intuitionism; but I realise in calling it that I will immediately attract detractors (!) who will not give the notion due consideration.
  • Banno
    23.1k
    But Banno, if what is right is found by intuition, then there's no way for a person to distinguish between something actually being right and it merely seeming right to that person.
  • Banno
    23.1k
    Too obscure, or a lack of @Sam26. Moved and edited.
  • Deleteduserrc
    2.8k
    But Banno, if what is right is found by intuition, then there's no way for a person to distinguish between something actually being right and it merely seeming right to that person.Banno

    I think a moral fideism is reasonable. Have moral convictions, be resolute. Persuade others of these convictions when necessary.
  • Banno
    23.1k
    The will to power.
  • Deleteduserrc
    2.8k
    Isn't that covered by the fideism part? Maybe the belief in God is simply a manifestation of the will to power, but the believer has faith it isn't.
  • Banno
    23.1k
    OK, a Knight of Faith?
  • Deleteduserrc
    2.8k
    Closer to that. But without the high heroic trappings. It's too high a standard to hold any actual person to. The totalitarian true believer is the knight of faith in a dark mirror. I'm thinking of something a little more modest, and human. Like : you know what's right, and you do your reasonable best to act accordingly, without worrying about whether these convictions are metaphysically justified.
  • Banno
    23.1k
    Ok. I’ve just thrown an argument at myself that should have been hurled by others in another thread.

    The knights will not suffice. There should be more to a hinge proposition.
  • Deleteduserrc
    2.8k
    The knights will not suffice.Banno

    Why not?
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    Isn't intuition subconscious logic? What we call intuition is reflexive rationality taking place at a spinal level metaphorically speaking? Since intuition isn't and can't be rigorous it's prone to error. The error margin is the only difference between intuition and formal reasoning. That's to say where's the relevant distinction betweem intuitionistic morality and whatever is the other option?
  • Banno
    23.1k
    Because I am not as easily pleased as you?
  • Banno
    23.1k
    Isn't intuition subconscious logic?TheMadFool

    That is oxymoronic. Logic is grammar. Grammar is not subconscious.
  • Deleteduserrc
    2.8k
    Aren't Wittgenstein's therapeutics or 'bedrock' the paradigmatic targets of 'too easily satisfied' responses?

    But I'm serious. What more can be added? What would it even look like? Any why does anything even need to be added? What kind of satisfaction is being pursued?

    In the interest of furthering conversation, a question:

    But Banno, if what is right is found by intuition, then there's no way for a person to distinguish between something actually being right and it merely seeming right to that person?
  • Banno
    23.1k
    A couple of threads ago I was going in the other direction... :grin:
  • Deleteduserrc
    2.8k
    Where are you going in this thread tho?
  • Banno
    23.1k
    Same place, from the other side:
    Then you seem to be in the rather odd position of claiming, say, that it is wrong to kick a puppy, but that it is not true that it is wrong to kick a puppy.Banno
  • Deleteduserrc
    2.8k
    To play devil's advocate (and part of this devil's in me) : Sure but what about SLAVERY? Lot of firm intutions there as well, self-evident to some as the hand in front of them.

    Or, more to the point : what if the puppys kicked as part of a ritual?
  • Banno
    23.1k
    Yep; all that. So now what? How we gonna tell them what to do?
  • Deleteduserrc
    2.8k
    Well we don't need to tell others what to do, mostly. But if we find our lives intertwined with theirs, sharing some moral situation - I think we'd appeal to their better angels through historical or fictional examples or discussing what's at stake --- in general, directing them, in whatever way, toward the values that they do, in fact, hold - when they aren't lost in abstraction.
  • Deleteduserrc
    2.8k
    That said, there is a danger here. Shame and the need for self-respect can be weaponized by skilled manipulators, who use people's moral sense against them, in service of their own ends. People can even be taught to do this to themselves, and experience this as their own intuition. So people are on guard against this kind of thing. That makes things trickier.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    That is oxymoronic. Logic is grammar. Grammar is not subconscious.Banno

    Is logic as arbitrary as grammar? Can we make our own rules?
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    Intuition is how you figure out what your preferences are.
  • creativesoul
    11.4k
    But Banno, if what is right is found by intuition, then there's no way for a person to distinguish between something actually being right and it merely seeming right to that person.Banno

    I'm not sure that that follows. I'm also not sure that the alternative explanation would satisfy you. It can 1)be the case that what is right/good is found by intuition, and 2)intuition can be mistaken.

    Intuition is thought/belief based. Those can be wrong. We can think/believe(intuit) that something or other is good, only to find out later that it was not. This happens all the time. People's thought/belief about acceptable/unacceptable behaviour(about what's good/right) changes throughout their life(most people's anyway).

    Human history shows this change as well.
  • praxis
    6.2k


    If you means there’s no way to rationalize it, isn’t this evidence for intuitionism?

    In studies of "moral dumbfounding" people have strong moral reactions but fail to establish any kind of rational principle to explain their reaction.
  • S
    11.7k
    Intuition is how you figure out what your preferences are.Terrapin Station

    Seems quite plausible to me, at least or especially in a context of aesthetics or ethics.
  • unforeseen
    35
    I would normally say ethics shouldn’t be based on intuition but rather on concrete principles, but as I get older I realize how human intuition is often very useful and the world couldn’t run without it as it does.
    More and more I’m beginning to doubt that ‘man is basically good’. Man is more self-centered, confused, vain, and a slave of emotions. His intuitions, although serving its purpose for survival and multiplication, cannot be trusted upon, judging by it’s tumultuous past and chaotic material-centered present. Religion should’ve been helpful in this regard, but it rarely ever was. And neither is abundance.
    Ethics cannot be relied on if it is bent for an agenda. It must be objective and clean, in most situations anyway.
  • frank
    14.5k
    But Banno, if what is right is found by intuition, then there's no way for a person to distinguish between something actually being right and it merely seeming right to that person.Banno

    There are a variety of things that can render people blind to ethical truths. There must be something fundamental about ethics else how does anyone ever learn what good is? Something like Meno's paradox looms, right?

    An alternative is to say that ethics is a matter of language use only. IOW moral nihilism.
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    There must be something fundamental about ethics else how does anyone ever learn what good is?frank

    One thing that happens for people to arrive at ethical stances is that most people have empathy. They observe Joey hitting Eddie, and they have a gut-level reaction against this--"Hey! Don't hit Eddie! That's not cool!"

    Another thing that happens is that people observe or imagine behavior and then they intuit not only whether they're okay with letting Joey and Eddie act that way towards each other in itself, but they also can think about things like, "Okay, if we let Joey and Eddie behave that way towards each other, it's likely to lead to x (which is likely to lead to y (which is likely to lead to z etc.)), and then they intuit whether they're okay with x (and/or y (and/or z etc.)).

    Usually people don't just think these sorts of things about Joey and Eddie. They apply them to a much broader population. They generalize how they feel.

    And of course, society has a lot of influence on these things, as other people express the results of their own intuitions, whether individually or per the statistical norm in some culture, and as people react to behavior, including your own . . . but moral stances, to be moral stances someone actually holds, are still going to be the result of intuitions about behavior and its upshots.
  • frank
    14.5k
    Yep. Feeling for others, feeling remorse, I think those would be examples of direct intuition of ethics.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.