This is an essay that debates the extent to which G.E Moores Intuitionism provides the greatest way to understand ethical statements more so than using Ethical Naturalism or Emotivism.
It critiques all 3 of the different means of understanding ethical statements and uses a large range of schol...
Intuitionism provides the best way to understand ethical statements
The Question as to whether Intuitionism provides the best way to understand ethical
statements is an issue that has been attributed to Meta Ethics. This is a non normative
branch of ethical philosophy and so is not focused on the moral value of actions or
behaviours, but rather on the moral values of ethical language such as goodness or badness.
There are two branches of Meta Ethics, that of Cognitivism which argues that ethical
language is objective and verifiable and so is meaningful and that of Non Cognitivism which
argues that ethical language is more subjective and not verifiable and so and that the moral
worth of things are usually down to the person. Hume notes this distinction clearly through
his example of the wilful murder. This Essay will endeavour to argue Intuitionism is the
better of the two cognitive approaches, however ultimately a Noncognitive approach in
Emotivism is actually the best way to understand ethical statements.
Intuitionism is one of the two Cognitive branches of Meta Ethics, usually attributed to G.E
Moore, and has been argued to be the more convincing approach of the two. Since it is
Cognitive it therefore claims that ethical language such as ‘Good’ is both objective and
verifiable and so does have innate meaning, however where Moore differs to Ethical
Naturalism, the other Cognitive approach, is that he claims this ethical language is not
definable by any other language and so it requires intuition to decipher rather than our
senses. Indeed, Moore uses the example of the colour yellow to develop and validate his
view; claiming that just as we know of the colour yellow when we see it even though we are
unable to define it, we have an intuitive knowledge of ethical language such as goodness
when we see it. This does seem a convincing and reasonable idea since we are able to
recognise that we have innate knowledge of certain things even though we are unable to
explain why and perhaps seems plausible in the face of contemporary understandings of our
conscience. Additionally it is a reasonable idea given that it does have support and backing
from many recent philosophers. For instance W.D Ross supported the idea of the meaning
of ethical language being based on intuition, noting how it is similar to how knowledge of
mathematics is innate to the mature mind. Certainly his prima Facie principles rely on the
notion that people intuitively know at first glance what is right and wrong. This also has
support from Phillipa Foot. Therefore Moore’s Meta Ethic is convincing given it is a
contemporary way of understanding ethical language and is one that seems compatible with
how we function on a daily.
However, Moores Intuitionist approach has been the subject of criticism, one most famous
being Sakars notion of the ethically colour blind. Sakar argues that just as people are colour
blind and so cannot see the colour yellow, there are some who are ‘Ethically colour blind’
and so may not have the adequate intuition if any intuition at all too decipher goodness
from badness. One such example can be seen in the case of Adres Breivik who was
responsible for the Norway Shootings and bombing in 2011 that killed 77 people including
children, but who still truly believed he was doing the right thing. This is a flaw of Moores
understanding of ethical language since it provides no way of helping these individuals gain
moral awareness given that Moore claims that intuition, (which they lack) is the only
accessible way. Additionally, Intuitionism has been critiqued further on the basis that since
it is indefinable there is nothing to actually outline what constitutes as right or wrong, good
or bad. For instance, who is to say that Breivik wasn’t the only person who was morally
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller Jackadler01. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £4.49. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
