Does /x/ believe that ethical intuitionism is a valid metaethical stance? And if not, what's the alternative? I tried asking /pol/ but they didn't seem to answer.
>>42411673I believe in it; i Think was all have a divine gift of intuition to understand what's right or wrong without needing an advanced ethical framework or a religious dogma.Just look at the puppet test with the babiesOnly though societal influence do our morals become distorted.
>>42411681Ethical intuitionism isn't just "I feel that x is right/wrong, therefore it is right/wrong." It's a metaethical stance, that is, it's a particular viewpoint on the foundation of moral facts. Intuitionists believe that the starting point for all ethical systems are, well, intuitions, which are defined as non-inferential intellectual appearances. Intellectual appearances are things that seem true to you just by thinking about them. However, intuitions can still be deceptive, so there must be no valid reasons for doubting the veracity of the intuitions (i.e. defeaters). If there are valid defeaters, then the intuition is deceptive and can't be used in a valid ethical argument. If there are no defeaters on the other hand, then we can safely assume that the intuition is prima facie true and it can be used in a valid argument about morality. Hopefully this clarifies what ethical intuitionism is for everyone reading this thread. :)
>>42411720I always thought of moral intuitionism to be my original post? If I'm wrong so be it.but following your definition I can see some flaws with it. I think its coming from a place of arrogance, just because something may seem this way now and there isn't anything which conflicts against it at this current point doesn't mean that there will be advancements in later times within history and an induvial should follow a different -already systemised- moral frame work (or just mine as i think its the truth) such as ethical emotivism or ethical rationalism, even if they may be flaws.Although op, i fail how to see this is /x/ and not /his/, were you hoping to receive some more non-secular response?
>>42411673A lot of intuition is pure cope. I think when you're at the point where you're overriding cope is where intuition is useful. For example, I used to think this or that about women's health, reproductive rights, etc, etc, but after a while I realized it was cope. I changed my mind; I don't think crushing babies and vacuuming them out of their mothers is good in any way. Why? I just don't like it, I don't like the whole thing. Are there cases it should be allowed, like actual rape? Ok, fine, but there's a lot of "rape" out there too. I just don't like it, the whole crushing babies thing.
>>42411751>just because something may seem this way now and there isn't anything which conflicts against it at this current point doesn't mean that there will be advancements in later times within history and an induvial should follow a different -already systemised- moral frame workProper moral intuitions are highly abstract and general. For instance, "it's wrong to cause immense suffering for absolutely no reason", I don't see how some future development is going to invalidate a moral intuition as fundamental as that one.
>>42411774>I replaced one cope with another cope.>I'm very smart.
>>42412552compelling
