What is goodness G E Moore How about

What is goodness? G. E. Moore How about getting a top grade at A Level? Meta-Ethics Intuitionism

Intuitionism • The beginning of the work of G. E. Moore (18731958) • He rejected Naturalism and suggested that morals can be seen through intuition. • H. A. Pritchard: attempted to define how people intuit (see or perceive) • W. D. Ross rejected moral absolutes, but developed a theory to justify moral duties Intuitionism: ethical theories that hold that moral knowledge is received in a different way from science and logic

Moore and Intuitionism Bertrand Russell and G. E. Moore: best mates Moore set out his ideas about ethics in his book Principia Ethica (1903), taking on the common naturalistic ideas in moral philosophy. His basic argument was that good “cannot be defined” and that philosophers have wasted their time trying. His counter-suggestion was what he called ‘moral intuitionism’. Moore argues that “good is good, and that is the end of the matter”. It is an indefinable and completely simple idea. Moore compares this to the colour yellow – ‘yellow’ can only be known directly through intuition. Yellow is just yellow, and that’s all there is to it. We don’t explain it in terms of something else. Moore claims that goodness is just the same; you can’t explain it any further. Moore said that seeing ethical statements as facts/natural (based on observation of the world around us) is wrong – therefore, this is known as the naturalistic fallacy. A fallacy is an error. It then follows that we have an intuitive sense of right or wrong: almost by instinct we know what is valuable (relationships, beautiful things). Moore did not think that we can prove an intuition, and it may be that our intuitions are wrong. This perhaps leaves ethical debate in quite a weak position.

Naturalistic Fallacy and G. E. MOORE • G. E. Moore published Principia Ethica in 1903. • He thought that intrinsically good things exist for their own sake. • They cannot be analyzed in the physical world or broken down to understand them. • Its not about proving them, but about seeing them. • He thought we should do the thing causes most good to exist. • Good is a simple indefinable thing to Moore. • He rejected Utilitarians who argued that goodness could be defined, measured, quantified and qualified. Naturalistic Fallacy: G. E. Moore’s argument that it is a mistake to define moral terms with reference to other properties

Naturalistic Fallacy and G. E. MOORE • Moore stated that attempts to define good in terms of something else was the naturalistic fallacy. • E. g. to define good as the thing that brings us most pleasure, is to turn good into something else. • Good cannot be broken down into constituent parts. Its already in its simplest form. • “If I am asked ‘what is good? ’ my answer is that good is good, and that is the end of the matter. Or if I am asked, ‘how is good to be defined? ’ my answer is that it cannot be defined, and that is all I have to say about it. ” – G. E. Moore, 1903. Naturalistic Fallacy: G. E. Moore’s argument that it is a mistake to define moral terms with reference to other properties

Naturalistic Fallacy and G. E. MOORE • Good is a simple notion, just like yellow is a simple notion- you know it when you see it. • A horse is a complex notion. It can be broken down into different qualities: a quadruped, an animal, a mammal etc. • “everything is what it is and not another thing. ”- G. E. Moore 1903. • Moore stated that people that try to define good are looking for some physical thing they can define (or substitute) as good. • This turns any moral judgement into a judgement about the physical world, and that is wrong. • How does this advert support G. E Moore’s Naturalistic Fallacy? Naturalistic Fallacy: G. E. Moore’s argument that it is a mistake to define moral terms with reference to other properties

Naturalistic Fallacy and G. E. MOORE • He believed intuition was the thing that perceives moral goodness, rather than our senses. • He therefore rejected all discussion about proof because intuition cannot be measured empirically. • Beautiful art is good in and of itself, and our awareness of this cannot be defined because its intuitive. • Problems with this theory: no evidence of intuition, moral discussions can’t take place using his view, Naturalistic Fallacy: G. E. Moore’s argument that it is a mistake to define moral terms with reference to other properties

Imagine you’re at an art gallery. As you wander around you see a beautiful work of art: a stunning statue of a small boy bathing himself, that shows purity and innocence. Then you find out the sculptor was a pedophile. The next photograph you see is of a beautiful ballet dancer. Then you find out the photographer made sexual advances to the models and he only included the once that comply in his collection. Is a beautiful painting really good in and of itself? Do you think you can ‘evil’? Think of a photograph of a well known criminal. When you look at the image, do you see evil?

Intuitionism Objective moral laws exist independently of human beings; moral truths can be discovered by using our minds in an intuitive way; intuitive ability is innate and the same for all human beings; intuition needs a mature mind so not infallible; allows for objective moral values. For H. A. Prichard, ‘ought to do’ has no definition; we should recognise what we ‘ought to do’ by intuition only; there are two ways of thinking (general thinking and moral thinking).

H. A. Pritchard • A leading British moral philosopher in 1920 s and 30 s. • “Does moral philosophy rest on mistake? ” • In his paper he argues that it is a hopeless quest to try to find arguments that determine what our moral obligations are. • Normally when we are asked why we should do this or that, our answer normally involves happiness or good. (“do the right thing because it will be best for you and will, in the end, make you happy. ”) • However, he argues that there’s a gap between the good thing and the idea of what things I have a duty to bring about. • The course of action X might be best but why I should bring about such a course of action?

Pritchard : Intuitionism In a similar way to Moore, the philosopher H. A. Pritchard argued that moral obligations form immediate apprehensions, a bit like mathematics. We can see directly that 1+1=2 for example, without needing further explanation. However, Pritchard thought that our intuitions involve more than just goodness, but also a sense of obligation. There is a gap between saying that something is good and saying that one ought to do it. So, resolving a moral dilemma involves weighing up contrasting obligations and trying to work out which is most important. The advantage of this is its positive view of human nature – people have genuine obligations and duties to fulfil. However, Pritchard’s idea of duty is very subjective; it’s not clear if there is a ‘right’ way to solve dilemmas. Pritchard stated that one ‘ought’ not to do something but rather they intuitively know what the right course of action is.

H. A. Pritchard • There are two different types of thinking taking place • Intuition • Reasoning • Reason collects facts, intuition determines which course to follow. • For example, giving to charity. Reason finds out about the charity and where the money goes. Intuition decides to give to charity. • Which charity? Should the money be used for other purposes? • Intuition defines which obligation is greater. • Moral obligations are not linked to the intrinsic goodness of any action.

H. A. Pritchard Are you convinced by Pritchard’s claim that our intuition about the right course of action is separate to reason? Consider something that provokes a strong moral response in you that you also feel a sense of duty about. E. g Vegetarianism Do you think our sense of duty arises from the facts of what you perceive, or is it a separate thing?

A 02 H. A. Pritchard • Pritchard doesn’t distinguish how we discriminate between different options when different people have different intuitions about what is right. • How we decide which option is better is not made clear. • He does acknowledge that some people don’t seem to be able to perceive moral truth to the same extent as others. • Those that experience doubt when making a moral decision need to think through more clearly the moral capacities. • Some think Pritchard's best contribution to meta-ethics is to show the importance of many more moral words, not just “good” and “bad, ”

W. D. Ross • He was Pritchard’s student • Set out to try and understand the sort of moral principles people might use when answering a moral question. • Principles can cause conflict. For instance, to keep a promise I may have to tell a lie. • Principles change from culture to culture. For example, arranged marriage. • Ross argues therefore that principles should not be taken as absolute.

W. D. Ross • • • Ross, like Moore, thought goodness cannot be defined in natural terms. Moral principles cannot be absolute. He proposed duties that are “at first appearance. ” (prima facie duties) When faced with a moral problem, various duties or obligations are apparent. He identified seven foundational prima facie duties that are clearly moral. They are: • • Promise- keeping Reparation for harm done Gratitude Justice Beneficence (an action done for the benefit of others) Self-improvement Non-maleficence (not harming or causing least harm for most beneficial outcome)

W. D. Ross • These are not absolutes, but they emphasis a personal character of duty. • It is a matter of judgement when deciding how to balance these duties in a moral situation. • Its not the case that one over-riding principle (like the greatest good for the greatest number) always applies. • The principles are not in priority order and they don’t tell us what to do. • Our intuition identifies our prima facie duties but our actual action is not selfevident.

W. D. Ross • Making judgements is difficult and not without error. • We can improve our ability to make judgements through experience of previous moral decision-making. • Ross developed intuitionism into an approach that took account of clashes of apparent absolutes, when a dilemma forces you to abandon one absolute or another. • E. g. he provides a solution to the Kantian problem of a son who has to be honest in a murderer’s enquiry about the whereabouts of his father, because one must always be truthful. • Ross discerns the need to be honest with the need to preserve life, and therefore he would place preservation over honesty. • Watch Black. Adder and the French Revolution -What would Ross say?

Issues for analysis and evaluation will be drawn from any aspect of the content, such as: Whether ethical and non-ethical statements are the same. E. g. , Is there a difference between saying that yellow is a colour (a non-ethical statement) and murder is wrong (ethical statement). �The extent to which ethical statements are not objective. i. e. , are moral views all based on opinions rather than facts? �Whether moral terms are intuitive. �The extent to which moral terms are just expressions of our emotions. �Whether one of Naturalism, Intuitionism or Emotivism is superior to the other theories. �The extent to which the different meta-ethical theories encourage moral debate.

Strengths of Intuitionism • Intuition has given a clear account of the meaning of ‘good’ in ethics – it is simple and known directly. • Intuitionism does not prescribe a rigid morality, since it allows that our intuitive judgements may be wrong. If one’s thinking is not mature, then one’s intuition will not work correctly. • Key ethicists Moore and Pritchard are broadly in agreement. • Moore’s ‘naturalistic fallacy’ seems persuasive: we can always criticise those who associate the good with something else. • Pritchard’s view that duties are self-evident gives a positive outlook on human nature.

Weaknesses of Intuitionism • This intuitionist approach to ethics does not give us concrete justifications for ethical behaviour – all it claims is that goodness is indefinable. There is no proof that moral intuition exists. • Intuitionism does not help us to resolve moral disputes and does not set out a clear decision making process. For example, if one is thinking about whether is it right to perform euthanasia, then intuition might not help. Contrast this with Utilitarianism, for example, which gives us the utility principle: the greatest good for the greatest number. There is no obvious way to resolve conflicting intuitions. • Intuitive ‘truths’ can differ widely – one person’s intuition might tell them that abortion is wrong in cases of the age of the mother whereas another person might think abortion is wrong solely based on the age of the mother.

(1 a) Explain how Intuitionism is the best way to understand moral language. '[20] (1 b) 'The Naturalistic Fallacy illustrates that ethical language can never be objective’. Evaluate this view (30)