This occured to me today. I can't really see how moral intuitionism is anything other than a fallacious appeal to consequences/emotions.
In every science, appealing to your feelings or to likely consequences to justify a hypothesis is considered, at best, inappropriate. For example, if I said, "Water boils at 100 degrees celsius and the reason for this is because it would make me feel good if it were the case," serious scientists would look at me and wonder whether I was joking or mentally impaired.
Only in philosophy, specifically in ethics, are you not only allowed to get away with something like this but it's positively encouraged! You can actually seriously say, "It is the case X is wrong and shouldn't be committed, because the likely consequences of this would make me feel good."
The point of philosophical inquiry is not whether a statement makes you feel good but whether it's true. If it is true that people shouldn't lie, maybe that makes you uncomfortable because you would prefer to lie, or because you can imagine some circumstance under which it might be in someone's interest to lie, but that's ultimately irrelevant to the truth that people shouldn't lie.
Maybe I just don't know enough about intuitionism, but why are appeals to emotions and consequences considered fallacious everywhere except in ethics?
You are discussing the is/ought, or fact/value dichotomy, which has been acknowledged and accepted for awhile. Nobody (important) takes ideas seriously which follow the pattern ___ should be ___ because ___ is ___.
You are correct, it is a fallacy to bridge the fact/value or is/ought dichotomy.
tunk: This occured to me today. I can't really see how moral intuitionism is anything other than a fallacious appeal to consequences/emotions. In every science, appealing to your feelings or to likely consequences to justify a hypothesis is considered, at best, inappropriate. For example, if I said, "Water boils at 100 degrees celsius and the reason for this is because it would make me feel good if it were the case," serious scientists would look at me and wonder whether I was joking or mentally impaired. Only in philosophy, specifically in ethics, are you not only allowed to get away with something like this but it's positively encouraged! You can actually seriously say, "It is the case X is wrong and shouldn't be committed, because the likely consequences of this would make me feel good." The point of philosophical inquiry is not whether a statement makes you feel good but whether it's true. If it is true that people shouldn't lie, maybe that makes you uncomfortable because you would prefer to lie, or because you can imagine some circumstance under which it might be in someone's interest to lie, but that's ultimately irrelevant to the truth that people shouldn't lie. Maybe I just don't know enough about intuitionism, but why are appeals to emotions and consequences considered fallacious everywhere except in ethics?
Reading this reminds me of reading Nietzsche. Perhaps he's right. I have my beliefs, and while psychologists would say, "Oh, you experienced X; therefore, you think Y is right/wrong," Nietzsche points out that nobody truly knows anything, and all meaning in anything is inherently a lie because there is no known substratum to anything we value. It is the same with ethics, since ethics are usually based on texts that have no distinct origin, and sometimes no origin at all other than people randomly deciding what goes where and what traditions ought to follow.
If chaos existed, and things were inherently meaningless, I say live an exciting life. Although I do believe there is value in life--not inherent value but value we create--I don't believe in fate or any of that crap. You can say I am close to agreeing with Nietzsche in that I believe people ought to choose their lifestyles, choose what is important to them and choose their value system. There is a lot of freedom in that. However, I do maintain that certain things are natural; that there are natural rights. Individuality, liberty and private property are the standards I live by.
@tunk
tunk: The point of philosophical inquiry is not whether a statement makes you feel good but whether it's true. If it is true that people shouldn't lie, maybe that makes you uncomfortable because you would prefer to lie, or because you can imagine some circumstance under which it might be in someone's interest to lie, but that's ultimately irrelevant to the truth that people shouldn't lie. Maybe I just don't know enough about intuitionism, but why are appeals to emotions and consequences considered fallacious everywhere except in ethics?
The point of logic is to understand how things logically follow or don't follow. You need a premise in order to know if you are right or wrong. Emotions can serve as a premise. The problem is when people are not consistent.