April 07, 2009
Sociopaths Against "Intuitionism"
Reader Rory commented on my last post:
I said to the group, "When people talk about intuition as the foundation for ethics and things like that, I feel like a sociopath."
So, what you might ask or say to someone who is arguing from intuition is, "What guidance might you give to a sociopath or someone without this intuitive moral compass?"
One practical problem with "intuitionism" is that it is deliberately vague and does not offer the same guidance to everyone in every situation. In business school, many of my classmates concluded that bribing a public official would be acceptable if that were the common practice in order to do business. (The specific context was a discussion around doing business in India, which has a long-standing and widespread problem with corruption in public officials.) I, however, could not get to the same conclusion as my classmates without significant misgivings.
I think an effective and proper system of ethics would allow someone who is equipped with reason only to come to the correct conclusion about how they should proceed and help them avoid moral conflicts with others.
The strength of this type of argument is that it is another version of the same argument Huemer used. If there is a case in which the principle in question does not work, regardless of how rare that situation is, then the principle must be abandonded. And if you lack this moral compass -- as some people do -- then you cannot rely on intuition.
This was going to be a quick post because I'm late getting ready for work, but one last note:
Intuition is also a form a question begging because it asks us to refer to that which we already believe to defend our beliefs.
A: Why is X the morally proper action?
B: Because our intuition says so.
A: Why does our intuition say so?
At this point, they blank out even though words may continue to come out of their mouths.
B: Because that's what nearly everyone around us believes.
A: Why does nearly everyone around us believe that?
B: Because that's what everyone around them...
And so on.
Post is locked.
Regarding Huemer, the stuff he's talking about... I don't know where it comes from, but it pervades my teaching at University. My lecturers constantly talk about how things "clash with our intuitions".My remarks at our last meeting last night might be used to formulate a fun and persuasive defense.
And I don't mean, "This might indicate something we should think about more". Oh no, I mean as in, "But this theory can't be quite so true if it clashes so strongly with our intuitions".
They say this with a dead straight face. Sadly, they don't do a course on "Intuitionism", so I can't understand exactly what they mean (so as to defeat it). It's more embedded in everything we do.
I said to the group, "When people talk about intuition as the foundation for ethics and things like that, I feel like a sociopath."
So, what you might ask or say to someone who is arguing from intuition is, "What guidance might you give to a sociopath or someone without this intuitive moral compass?"
One practical problem with "intuitionism" is that it is deliberately vague and does not offer the same guidance to everyone in every situation. In business school, many of my classmates concluded that bribing a public official would be acceptable if that were the common practice in order to do business. (The specific context was a discussion around doing business in India, which has a long-standing and widespread problem with corruption in public officials.) I, however, could not get to the same conclusion as my classmates without significant misgivings.
I think an effective and proper system of ethics would allow someone who is equipped with reason only to come to the correct conclusion about how they should proceed and help them avoid moral conflicts with others.
The strength of this type of argument is that it is another version of the same argument Huemer used. If there is a case in which the principle in question does not work, regardless of how rare that situation is, then the principle must be abandonded. And if you lack this moral compass -- as some people do -- then you cannot rely on intuition.
This was going to be a quick post because I'm late getting ready for work, but one last note:
Intuition is also a form a question begging because it asks us to refer to that which we already believe to defend our beliefs.
A: Why is X the morally proper action?
B: Because our intuition says so.
A: Why does our intuition say so?
At this point, they blank out even though words may continue to come out of their mouths.
B: Because that's what nearly everyone around us believes.
A: Why does nearly everyone around us believe that?
B: Because that's what everyone around them...
And so on.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
06:43 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Category: Importance of Ideas
Post contains 482 words, total size 3 kb.
1
I think that the more sophisticated "intuitionists" like Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris will argue that morality is "hard-wired" into us by evolution. This is what the determinists argue, and most of today's atheists are determinists (Dennet, Harris and Dawkins all are). They will say that natural selection is responsible for determining our morality and that morality changes over time in response to survival pressures. Again, if you were to argue for an objective moral code identifiable by reason, they would think you were insane. Of course mention Ayn Rand's name and they will make fun of you. Sadly that is the response that Rand gets from today's leftist/secularist/empiricist types. Sadly, many religious people show more respect for Rand. Its dishearening.
Posted by: madmax at April 07, 2009 05:35 PM (8TwnH)
2
I sympathize with Rory. It's very annoying to hear all these so-called philosophers talk and reason like this. However, I don't think it's very hard to refute. Intuitions are just things we "just know". It's a form of mysticism and it's invalid for the very same reasons.
In essence all these intuitions are, _psychologically_, nothing more than feelings, and nothing is ever true or false simply because it goes well with your feelings or the feelings of your professor or your neighbors.
If this is not what these people mean when they talk about intuitions, then that's just another bad thing with it: it's not clearly defined, so nobody can ever know what they mean when they refer to their so-called intuitions. Their inability and/or unwillingness to make clear what they mean, means that even them don't really know what they are talking about.
I simply refuse to talk that language - on principle. Every time they say: "My intuition is..." I ask them: "What do you mean by 'intuition'? Why should I listen to your intuition? Why is it ever proper to go by your feelings in philosophy?" They _never_ give me an answer that makes sense. It's like they validate their intuitions by refering to other intuitions. They never look at reality, these people!
What facts would ever give rise to these so-called intuitions? There are real facts behind all these "intuitions": it's psychologically the result of the _automatizations_ of a long chain of conceptual knowledge. (Think about this one.)
Now, since most people, academic philosophers in particular, are so bad at introspection and have NO grasp of the hierarchy of knowledge, they tend to treat their FEELING that something is true or false, good or bad, as some kind of IRREDUCIBLE, self-evident, knowledge. When, of course, it's neither self-evident nor irreducible.
This is, by the way, the exact same phenomenon that people refer to go by when they say that they go with their "gut feeling". It's just that even academic philosophers, who want to pretend that they are not entirely going by their emotions, whims and irrational urges, know how bad it would sound if they said, over and over again: "Well, my gut tells me that this is wrong. How about you? What does your gut feeling tell you?"
In essence all these intuitions are, _psychologically_, nothing more than feelings, and nothing is ever true or false simply because it goes well with your feelings or the feelings of your professor or your neighbors.
If this is not what these people mean when they talk about intuitions, then that's just another bad thing with it: it's not clearly defined, so nobody can ever know what they mean when they refer to their so-called intuitions. Their inability and/or unwillingness to make clear what they mean, means that even them don't really know what they are talking about.
I simply refuse to talk that language - on principle. Every time they say: "My intuition is..." I ask them: "What do you mean by 'intuition'? Why should I listen to your intuition? Why is it ever proper to go by your feelings in philosophy?" They _never_ give me an answer that makes sense. It's like they validate their intuitions by refering to other intuitions. They never look at reality, these people!
What facts would ever give rise to these so-called intuitions? There are real facts behind all these "intuitions": it's psychologically the result of the _automatizations_ of a long chain of conceptual knowledge. (Think about this one.)
Now, since most people, academic philosophers in particular, are so bad at introspection and have NO grasp of the hierarchy of knowledge, they tend to treat their FEELING that something is true or false, good or bad, as some kind of IRREDUCIBLE, self-evident, knowledge. When, of course, it's neither self-evident nor irreducible.
This is, by the way, the exact same phenomenon that people refer to go by when they say that they go with their "gut feeling". It's just that even academic philosophers, who want to pretend that they are not entirely going by their emotions, whims and irrational urges, know how bad it would sound if they said, over and over again: "Well, my gut tells me that this is wrong. How about you? What does your gut feeling tell you?"
Posted by: Carl Svanberg at April 10, 2009 04:26 AM (j8KVs)
3
While observing Tara Smith tear apart intuitionism in her book Viable Values, I recalled Huemer's suggestion to poll the population to determine ethical truths. I thought that experiment through, and found it to be a spurious solution to the "problem" of moral differences across cultures. Let me know what you think here:
http://reality.ohio.newintellectuals.org/?p=491
http://reality.ohio.newintellectuals.org/?p=491
Posted by: Brian at May 02, 2009 01:26 PM (Vi4ok)
4
this Website is very good. you can find something surprise if click it.
http://www.gucciusaoutlet.com/
Posted by: jmk at July 14, 2010 08:48 PM (RYfpw)
32kb generated in 0.0497 seconds; 69 queries returned 175 records.
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.
