Intuitionism

Intuitionism
Student’s name
University
Abstract
Ethical approaches in the society compel all users to act differently based on the situation. Intuitionism implies the use of instincts, coherence, self-evidence and set of rules to guide the actions and decisions undertaken by individuals. The central ideas of the concept use the correctness and wrongness of an action to carry out decisions and employ a set of rules to ensure the actions meet certain standards. The standards apply prerogatives, principles of acting and consenting to decisions and constraints, to ensure their actions impact good deeds rather than harm. The privileges dissuade individuals from acting contrary to the provisions of the prerogatives. Individuals face constraints in effecting decisions, either enabling or failing to meet the conditions of the concept. Individuals ought to understand when it is appropriate to act and watch, to reduce externalities caused by their decisions. Changing the societal ideologies to confirm to intuitionism will encourage more people to do good, undertaking actions that benefit the society. Differences existent in intuition is a major objection to the concept.
Ethical considerations influence a person’s decisions and actions in the society. Philosophers intimate that inborn ethics and cultural norms are the biggest influences in a person’s life. The society has set standards and rules requiring individuals to conform to the rules. Today, differences exist among different influences on ethical perspectives acceptable in the society.

Christianity disapproves divorce in any circumstance unless either spouse dies, while secular beliefs admit one can divorce if either party is unfaithful. The differences can confuse an individual forcing people to choose an approach or line of thought that the individuals support. Contractarianism, utilitarianism, and intuitionism are typical approaches to morality and ethics in the modern society (Driver, 2006). Intuitionism implies using a set of rules or principles while also knowing the rights and wrongs in the society, to influence a person’s decisions or actions (Cameron, Payne & Doris, 2013). The tenets champion the use of standards in the society to guide actions. Perceptively, a doctor ought to treat a patient whose life is in danger even if the person lacks insurance. However, the doctor risks being surcharged for the costs of medical care if the patient is unable to pay for the medical expenses. The ethical justification of the physician is based on the doctor’s compliance with their code of conduct while hoping the patient can pay the medical costs.
Central Ideas of Intuitionism
The approach champions two distinct ideas that explain the appropriateness of the concept of the society. The ideas also dismiss other approaches of ethics in the society, are likely to adversely affect a person’s actions.
Rightness and Wrongness
Intuitionists believe all individuals have the moral conscience to do what is right and wrong. Intuitionists intimate that people will objectively or subjectively distinguish an action and make decisions based on their findings. Proponents believe that many people are unlikely to commit crime because the people believe it to be wrong. Proponents of the approach are against the consequentialist mindset of actions since it foregoes evaluation of the actions before doing the actions (Tropman, 2009). Consequentialists justify their actions based on the result while failing to evaluate how the persons attain their objective. Intuitionists believe it is wrong to kill, but consequentialists admit it is okay to kill if it is for a good cause. A typical example is killing a person to use the person’s organs to save the lives of five that need the same organs. However, it is morally wrong to harm a person for the good of others. The central idea confers that people are bestowed with the conscience to undertake correct decisions unlike non-human objects, confirming the centrality of the idea in intuitionism
Plurality of Principles
The concept connotes that a set of rules affect a person’s actions. The person is obligated to conform to the set of regulations while failing to adhere to the rules leads to punishment or the stated consequences. The approach intimates that the person uses the rules to evaluate the appropriateness of an action while using common sense to reach a decision. Religious rules, cultural norms, family values and state laws are some of the modern set of regulations intuitionists have to conform to in everyday life. Individuals following the principles have to evaluate the appropriateness of the legislation in the context and apply their actions based on morals (Prawitz, 2012). Perceptively, while some states in the USA accept euthanasia, it is appropriate to evaluate if the action ethically observes the tenets of intuitionism. Euthanasia has caused divisions among families in modern society, highlighting the contrast of ethical approaches different individuals append to in the contemporary society. Intuitionism elaborates that by using all principles, common sense ought to prevail, intimating that the actions ought not to cause harm to the victim. Philosophical literature intimates that rights of the victims constrain a person’s actions.
“Prerogatives,” “constraints” and the “doctrine of doing and allowing.”
Prerogatives
Prerogatives are privileges permitting people to act in certain ways that deprive maximization of their deeds as good actions. The individuals ought to append to moral spaces defined within the confines of the person’s privileges. However, proponents admit by maximizing impartial good through actions is ethically correct, though failure to do so does not amount to being wrong. The moral spaces limit or fail to inspire individuals to act in an exceptional manner (Nagel & Wiegmann, 2016). Imperatively, if a person chooses to visit leisure parks for leisure unlike volunteering in non-governmental institutions, the actions are permissible based on prerogatives used in the society. However, the person fails to maximize the effects of their actions, both correct, to ensure the impartial good of their deeds. However, consequentialists think that by enforcing such deeds at the behest of doing projects that enrich a person, conflict the actual precincts of personal good in the society. Prerogatives limit the extent to which an individual may act to ensure impartial good, dependent on moral space.
Constraints
Intuitionists believe that the existence of constraints limits maximization of impartial good even though the actions may result in some benefits. The approach confirms that certain actions are erroneous and their result ought not to justify their undertaking. Perceptively, it is erroneous for a student to let another student copy their assignment answers simply because the student was unable to get the answers. Objectively, the student ought to seek assistance from the teacher or ask fellow students to explain in-depth the topic. Similarly, it is immoral for one to kill a person, so as to harvest the organs of the person to save the lives of others. The actions harm the individual for the benefit of the others, rejecting the person’s autonomy as a constraining factor to disapprove the actions (Cowan, 2015). Intuitionists confer that a person’s actions are limited by certain constraints existent in the society. The limitations ensure that one acts within the confines of morality in the society.
The Doctrine of Doing and Allowing
The concept elaborates on the appropriateness of one’s action or inaction in certain circumstances to conform to ethical representation of the society. Philippa Foot gives a classic example of two rescue operations that create dilemmas for the participants. Apparently, in the first case, one can rescue either five people in one location or one person in another location, but only able to save only one group. Perceptively, in the other rescue mission, the person can only save five drowning people by driving over a person along the way. However, the person can choose to save the person along the road and forego the other five. The first rescue team will opt to save the five but second will want to save the injured person along the way. The difference contrasts the consequentialist beliefs of equivalence of deeds that requires saving all five in the two scenarios. However, intuitionists intimate that negative rights outweigh positive rights.
Apparently, interfering with the person on the road, by running over the person, amounts to harming the person, demonstrating the failure to harm but passively allowing the five to drown. Moreover, it easier to save the sick person than to hurt the person, connoting the importance of positive rights. However, the underlying assumption is that upon all things remaining constant, one’s intention ought to be positive, for the action to be morally correct (Liu, 2012). Intuitively, supposing James intentionally kills a child to benefit from the child’s inheritance while Jones planning to kill an infant watches as the infant accidently trips and dies in the bathroom and ultimately receives the child’s inheritance, illustrates the distinction between allowing and doing. Similarly, voluntary active euthanasia is ethically accepted, just as passively allowing the victim to die. Consequently, a person ought to ensure their actions limit foreseen losses while mitigating known losses.
How would we act differently if we were to become intuitionists?
Intuitionism implores people to act ethically and evaluate their actions before committing the actions. The concept challenges individuals against consequentially taking decisions and using their results to evaluate and justify their actions, either wrong or right. However, the overlying factor in acting differently lies in trying to maximize ethical good from a person’s actions. Perceptively, by becoming intuitionists persons are likely to engage in charity, helping out others and forfeit their wants in the long-run. People will opt to volunteer during their free time, unlike undertaking activities that will enrich the individuals in the long-term. Furthermore, the actions are likely to implore people to forego their individualistic tendencies and seek to ensure the public or others benefit from their actions. Consequently, people will engage in community initiatives out of their will, unlike trying to prop their image in the current society.
Secondly, people will ensure that all constraints are adhered to, to reduce the externalities of their actions. The approach will change how people behave and react to uncommon gestures. Perceptively, the society will eventually approve the use of organ donation upon death; an issue disapproved in the society. Today, some people donate organs such as kidney and are left with one, which is risky, to save a dying friend or relative, but fail to donate their organs upon death. Similarly, soldiers planning to strike the enemy hideout will be forced to attack using ground troops to save the civilians from attack from friendly fire. The constraints are eradicated by respecting rights of others and using the concept to make crucial decisions. Therefore, individuals will become more apprehensive of other person rights and ensure that their actions will neither affect the autonomy of others nor risk their lives in the society.
Objections to Intuition
Intuitionists agree that intuitions are popular rules, mysterious insights, while people have different intuitions. Coherence, instincts, common sense and introspections are classic examples of intuition. Critics believe that coherence must meet the condition of being popular for people to accept it as a norm in the society. However, the amalgamation of rules and instincts questions the veracity of the claim. However, people display different intuitions based on their religion, cultural norms and instincts. Experts are likely to have a different perspective of a situation, unlike others (Väyrynen, 2008). The experts have in-depth knowledge on the issue and can deductively deduce all scenarios caused by certain actions. Scientific deductions are only observable to ensure that intuitive results are achieved. Doctors may advise relatives of a patient to authorize the doctors to undertake active euthanasia for a patient that has been in a coma for a longer period, while the doctors foresee no changes in the situation. The doctor’s advice are supreme and defy intuition since even after observation if the circumstances fail to change, the results indicate that the physician acted in knowledge. Furthermore, it is hard to verbalize intuitions, making it more difficult to convince individuals of different intuitions in the society. Intuitions are innate perspectives exhibited by different individuals but difficult to explain to other people. Consequently, the mysteriousness of intuitions and the diversity of intuitions confuse people on the appropriate intuitions to use.
My point of view on intuitionism.
Theoretical models of intuition are basic regulations that enforce ethical perspectives of the society. Intuitionism executes major facets of the society through instincts, self-evidence, and coherence, ensuring that people have a consensus on the approach to governance. The concept is reliable and conclusive, ensuring that all participants share the common values of the society. The rules are basic imploring that each person easily understands and agrees to the precincts of the concept. Moreover, the attractiveness of the idea has ensured that the concept is universally accepted in many jurisdictions, though its applications are silent. Furthermore, the concept is flexible and applicable to both ancient and modern periods. The advantages of the concept and its easiness in application meet my approval and support of the use of the idea in modern life. Consequently, intuitionism is better than other ethical approaches.
References
Cameron, C. D., Payne, B. K., & Doris, J. M. (2013). Morality in high definition: Emotion
differentiation calibrates the influence of incidental disgust on moral judgments. Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(4), 719-725.
Cowan, R. (2015). Clarifying ethical intuitionism. European Journal of Philosophy, 23(4), 1097-
1116.
The driver, J. (2006). Ethics: the fundamentals. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub.
Liu, X. (2012). A robust defense of the Doctrine of Doing and Allowing. Utilitas, 24(01), 63-81.
Nagel, J., & Wiegmann, A. (2016). Moral Intuitionism and Empirical Data. In Dual-Process
Theories in Moral Psychology (pp. 185-206). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.
Prawitz, D. (2012). Truth and proof in intuitionism. In Epistemology versus ontology (pp. 45-67).
Springer Netherlands.
Tropman, E. (2009). Renewing moral intuitionism. Journal of Moral Philosophy, 6(4), 440-463.
Väyrynen, P. (2008). Some good and bad news for ethical intuitionism. The Philosophical
Quarterly, 58(232), 489-511.