Happy Thanksgiving!

I will be busy this Turkey Day weekend, so I won't be able to post anything. But starting next week, I will hopefully be able to get some more posts up. Just thought you all should know.

Ethical Intuitionism

Ethical Intuitionism, as I understand it, essentially breaks up into five principles:

1. Moral values are objective. That is, they really exist, and are independent of observers.
2. Moral knowledge is synthetic, a priori.
3. Moral knowledge is acquired by the exercise of a certain mental faculty.
4. Moral intuition, and the claims we know by it, are rational.
5. Moral judgment, at least in important cases, is direct and unmediated.

The first principle can be understood after a simple test of logic:

(1) There are moral propositions.
(2) So they are each either true or not true. (by law of excluded middle)
(3) And it's not that they're all untrue. Surely it is true, rather than false, that Josef Stalin's genocidal activities were bad.
(4) So some moral judgements correspond to reality. (from 2,3, and the correspondence theory of truth)
(5) So moral values are part of reality. (which is realism)

So, the subjectivists/relativists may argue that, in compliance with proposition number 2, that all moral propositions are not true in the sense that they are not true for everybody, thereby saying that three is an untrue proposition. That would certainly seem to imply, then, that Stalin's genocidal activities were good for Stalin. Yet, give me a person who believes that such murder is permissable. Then the subjectivists would point to disagreements about morality as evidence of its subjectivity/relativity. That will be addressed when I address point three.

The second principle essentially means that moral knowledge, if there is any, can't be empirical because, first, moral values are not perceptible; second, moral propositions are generally necessary, whereas empirical knowledge is generally contingent; and third, it doesn't seem possible to construct any kind of inductive arguments for moral conclusions.

Now, of course there is an empirical element to most moral judgements. For instance, it is in part empirically that I know that Stalin's activities were bad. I didn't know a priori that Stalin had millions of people executed. But that that sort of activity is bad is an a priori judgement.

Similarly, of course there are analytic moral judgements -- for instance, "Goodness is good." But the point is that most moral judgements -- the ones that people bother talking about, such as "People have a right to life" -- are synthetic. Since all this is generally admitted, there is no need to elaborate.

Now, of course, the third principle is key. By using our mental faculty to make moral judgments, we decide whether certain actions are moral or immoral. Naturally, because of human fallibility, this will lead to disagreements among different people. But, of course, this principle is key for another reason. It also means that morality is a learning process. Just because moral truths are objective doesn't necessarily mean that we inherently know them. In fact, it could even be argued that as infants, we aren't born with any knowledge of the sort whatsoever. Naturally, much of what we learn morally during the formidable years comes from our parents; however, we may stray from what our parents teach us, based upon our experience, our variance of knowledge, etc. And the exercise of that certain mental faculty isn't admission that we're born with the knowledge; rather, it's an admission that we're born with the capacity to have the knowledge.

But, some may argue that the disagreement is due to the subjectivity/relativity of morality and it's judgments. Of course, that is reasoned through inductive reasoning, and inherently faulty system of reason. But, I have used deductive reasoning, using my prior knowledge of the fallibility of human logic, to say that this will lead to human knowledge. Which would you say is more accurate: a conclusion based upon a premise we know to be true, or a conclusion based upon a premise that we assume to be true? I would personally say the former would more likely to be accurate. Some would say that although the law of probability would say that the former of the two is more likely to be accurate, that doesn't necessarily lessen the validity of the latter of the two. This is a perfectly true statement, but it is of my experience to put my trust in the law of probability when it comes to finding the truth of any matter.

The fourth principle is also key. The name intuitionism isn't intended to imply that morality is some sort of "gut feeling." Rather, it's an exercise of reason. That is, whenever we assess any given situation, we apply our capacity for reason into the situation. We assess it with prior experience, current knowledge (moral and otherwise), and whatever else we may have at our disposal to decide how to act. Rationality and morality aren't mutually exclusive. To the contrary, rationality is necessary in order to properly apply our own morality.

Lastly, the fifth principle is key. The name "Intuition" is supposed to imply that morality is axiomatic: that is, it can't be proven through infinite regression, nor can it be proven through circular logic (and in fact, this goes hand in hand with the first principle); rather, it simply is. It's simply "self-evident", if you will. For example, let's take The idea that theft is wrong. I can derive the principles behind that for only so long (The Non-Aggression Principle, which is based upon The Labor Theory of Property and the Mental Faculty Theory of Individual Autonomy, which I will later discuss; or I can derive it from the Ten Commandments) before it comes down to axiomatic beliefs. Not everything has a reason. Some things are axiomatic. One may argue that these "axioms" are merely arbitrary assumptions, meaning to imply that arbitrary assumptions, or anything arbitrary, is necessarily bad. Well, isn't the English alphabet merely an arbitrary collection of points to represent arbitrarily assigned sounds? Of course it is. But the English language, for many people, is a medium for transmitting information, and we don't even give it a second thought. Is the English language thus bad for being so arbitrary? I would think not. Just because something is axiomatic doesn't necessarily make it wrongly assumed. Nor does it necessarily make it rightly assumed, either.

Now, is Ethical Intuitionism Biblically based? It could be argued as such: "Take to heart these words that I give you today. Repeat them to your children. Talk about them when you’re at home or away, when you lie down or get up. Write them down, and tie them around your wrist, and wear them as headbands as a reminder. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates" (Deut. 6:6-9, God's Word). First, it's obvious that if we have to teach our children morality, that they aren't inherently born with moral knowledge. Second, it would seem that morality is objective (in this case, instituted by the Lord). So, there is a Biblical basis for a good portion of Ethical Intuitionism, and to my knowledge, there is no principle that inherently contradicts the Holy Bible.

If you have any comments concerning the validity of this, let me know. I appreciate all comments and constructive criticism, including, but not limited to, any Biblical contradictions that I may have committed, or any area where I may have contradicted myself through internal logic, or may have even not thoroughly explained myself. Thank you for reading.

This Is Most Certainly True: Formal Introduction

As a Lutheran and a Libertarian, I will write entries in this blog that will attempt to coincide, and hopefully with some success, Christianity, libertarianism, and ethical intuitionism. Obviously, how I portray Christianity will have a Lutheran slant, so while I don't intend to insult anybody's Christian faith, I apologize in advance. And certainly, not every market anarchist will agree with me on every detail; however, that's alright. In fact, it's rather expected, due to the fallibility of human logic. If you want a name to the faceless blogger behind this computer, you may refer to me as Ray. This is a rather short blog, I know, but I felt that a formal introduction was in order.