top of page
  • Writer's pictureKazel Li

Trusting moral intuitions: Bengson's argument

Trusting moral intuitions - John Bengson, Terence Cuneo, Russ Shafer-Landau

Claim: moral intuitions are trustworthy, based on the Trustworthiness criterion: moral intuitions are trustworthy because they are the outputs of a cognitive practice

We will defend a version of moral intuitionism according to which moral intuitions (α) have positive epistemic status, namely, trustworthiness; (β) do not have that status fully in virtue of facts about coherence, inferential role, or other such intra- or inter-attitudinal connections; and (γ ) are in normal circumstances4 sufficient to yield trustworthy moral beliefs


Def of moral intuition

Intuition = a conscious non-sensory mental state or event in which it strikes one that things are a certain way when one reflects on the matter

Moral intuitions = intuitions about moral matters, concern about the moral status of a type of behavior, particular behaviors, moral reasons, obligations, principles…

Sometimes psychological bases of moral beliefs and judgments

We will defend a version of moral intuitionism according to which moral intuitions (α) have positive epistemic status, namely, trustworthiness; (β) do not have that status fully in virtue of facts about coherence, inferential role, or other such intra- or inter-attitudinal connections; and (γ ) are in normal circumstances4 sufficient to yield trustworthy moral beliefs

Intuitions are not beliefs or judgments, but rather non-doxastic epistemic bases of such doxastic states

Moral intuitionists are fallible

Intuitions can have explanation or proof

Moral intuitionism here emphasizes a range of features, including social dimensions

Moral intuitionism isn’t moral nonnaturalism, but non-naturalism is a metaphysical position regarding the nature of moral reality


II. trustworthiness

To trust is X to cognitively rely on X, to employ X to form, maintain, or revise the agent’s attitudes with the aim of increasing, improving, or otherwise positively contributing to her stock of knowledge or understanding regarding X’s contents

Trustworthiness is thus warranted cognitive reliance

Warrant

Graduable

Not obligatory

Defeasible

Warrant is an epistemic notion


III. the trustworthiness criterion

Cognitive practice

Cognitive practice: a set of activities and events, with social dimensions, into which we are inducted in suitable conditions, yields a certain range of representational states as outputs, including psychological basis, intuition

Moral intuition practice is one of the cognitive practice

Cultivated by social learning: they are social practices in working order

Working order: 1) socially well-established; 2) deeply entrenched; 3) makes available sophisticated methods of critically evaluating its outputs; 4) engenders achievement; 5) is internally harmonious

The trustworthiness criterion (initial statement) for a cognitive practice: If a cognitive practice P is in good working order, then P’s outputs are trustworthy for participants in P (warrantedly reliable)

It’s neutral with respect to other features of these outputs, etc, “objectivity”

Compatible with subjectivity; does not stack the deck in favor of non-subjectivist theories

Why would fulfillment of conditions “in working order” for a cognitive practice that is epistemically excellent bring trustworthiness?

Such reliance exhibits these features because the cognitive practice that generated these outputs is itself epistemically excellent


IV. examining the status of moral intuitions

It fulfills the conditions

Sophisticated methods of critical evaluation?

Consistency, corroboration, confirmation - yes. It is checkable

Coherent (reflective equilibrium)

Reflection on concepts


People’s intuition on some matters might disagree, but on others align — e.g it’s right to protect one’s children from lethal danger.

Any genuine intuitional conflict about such platitudes and their direct application is minimal, traceable to another flaw, or not systemic

The moral disagreement can be traced to

Different, incompatible factual beliefs

governing the relative weight (epistemic, prudential, or moral) of various sorts of considerations

different, perhaps incompatible ancillary moral beliefs or judgments.

A and b are not really morally significant; b and c are only sometimes fully based on moral intuitions but are more of reasoning

Moral intuitions are descriptive and evaluative



Moral intuition is in good working order, epistemically

0 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

The Subject's Love is

In the past in love, I was in conflict. Love fell me into the water. The liquid seeped into my mouth and surged into my nostrils, then...

Comments


bottom of page