it is not that we intuit goodness - the quality
of goodness etc.
it is not as if there is some intuitive apprehension
of a moral property or reality
this is the sense in which intuitionism is on the wrong
track - as it were goes astray
I think though there is something to be said for it
it is just understanding where it is properly located
and I think it is about this -
when I say 'that is good' - I identify x as good
now what does this mean?
here I think 'good' is an intuitive description
and by that I mean the term 'good' is a shorthand
description
now you will ask - of what?
and this is the thing -
we expect a fairly straightforward answer -
even at a philosophical level
when we identify x as good -
we are not saying anything simple
we are not even saying anything that can be definitively
explicated
and we are not saying anything that will be shown
to be a neat little package
what happens in moral philosophy is that we explore
possible definitions understandings - explanations
the state of philosophical discourse gives us an idea
of the possible content of a term like 'good'
we need to understand philosophical discourse
as a range of possible meanings -
so my point is -
when I say 'x is good' - and you ask 'what do you mean?' -
well - for one it is not likely I am going to give you
my most comprehensive and deepest analysis of my
thinking on the issue - all matters relevant -
theoretical - empirical - whatever etc.
such an analysis is technically endless - or incomplete
this is not to say - when I say - 'x is good' I don't
know what I am talking about -
rather the full explanation of what I mean at the time
would be very complex
I say - 'x is good' - I am intuiting - or just referring
to my ethics - my incomplete - ever changing and developing
idea and practice of morality - to the matter in question
and if you were to say - look I don't want your life history -
or the history of the universe - I just want to know -
why you say 'x is good'
I say - 'OK - I just think it is'
in terms of any definition - simple clear cut explanation -
if that's what you want I have to say 'I don't know'
and finally of course that is the truth
so the above is not just an argument against ethical
intuitionsism - the same points would apply to any ethical
theory meta or normative and for that matter any
philosophical theory whatsoever
p.s.
philosophers have to understand they work from the inside -
not the outside of the world
all philosophical theory is a possible explanation -
a response to the unknown
ultimately a philosophical theory is a possible account
of how someone might be thinking - on a particular issue
at a particular time
it's a deep look at the obvious
and there is no single theory - no one approach -
philosophical creativity is finding new ways
new ways that add to the great variety of understandings
