Customer Reviews

Ethical Intuitionism

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This is an outstanding defense of the straightforward view that there are objective ethical facts, that such facts are not reducible to other kinds of (e.g. natural) facts, and that some of these ethical facts are simply seen to be true without being inferred from other things we know.

While the basic elements of this view are straightforward, the philosophical issues related to it are complex. Huemer does an excellent job of seeing to the heart of the matter and explaining his position in a clear fashion. He follows the tried-and-true procedure of laying out his own view, criticizing alternatives to it, and defending it against a variety of objections. Huemer's defense of ethical intuitionism against assorted objections is a real strength of the book. He considers both popular and more philosophical objections, and his replies are challenging. Any intellectually honest person who has considered and rejected ethical intuitionism (or some view labeled "ethical intuitionism") will want to read this book (and many others *should* read it whether they want to or not).

The book is very reader-friendly; much of it is accessible to non-philosophers and more technical sections are identified as such and can be skipped by non-specialists without disruption of the main thread of argument. It also contains a very helpful analytical table of contents.

Students, professional philosophers, and interested laypersons will find much of value in this book. The only significant drawback of the book is its price. I very much hope that the publisher will produce a paperback version so that the book can reach the wide audience it deserves (and who badly need it).

This is a fantastic book about metaethics. Metaethics is the study of the meaning of right and wrong, as opposed to just plain ethics, which purports to tell us what's right and what isn't. For example, someone might ask "Is it good to keep promises?" That's an ethics question. But if someone asks "When you say 'It's good to keep promises', what do you mean?" then that's a metaethics question.

Huemer does a great job of explaining his views clearly and supporting them with a lot of strong arguments, in a clear and accessible style. He thinks that moral statements are meaningful and are true or false just like statements about physical reality (this is called moral realism) and that we become aware of moral truths through intuition (hence the book's title). He criticizes all forms of moral subjectivism, which is the view that moral statements can be true or false depending on the speaker's, or society's, attitude or perspective toward the statement.

Huemer also does us hobbyists the favor of clearly marking the parts that are intended primarily for his fellow professional philosophers due to their technical nature and depth of engagement with the literature.

If you are interested in metaethics, or in a clear exposition of moral realism and critique of subjectivism, this is required reading. It helps if you're already familiar with modern moral philosophy -- it's not intended purely for a popular audience -- but if you count philosophy among your interests and hobbies, then you don't need to be an academic to appreciate this book.

First, a disclaimer. This book defends a position I have held for most of my 44 years as a philosophy professor.

It is the book I would have written if I had been a smarter and more energetic person. It is just about as good as it could be.

The author has a special gift for clarity and succinctness which is rare among academics. The concluding chapter is a summary of his main points and is a marvel of clarity. If one has, as so many do, a long held negative opinion of ethical intuitionism, one should read this short chapter and be persuaded by it to then take the position seriously and to read the whole book.

My only negative feeling is one of envy.

Michael Huemer's book "Ethical Intuitionism" defends a non-naturalist version of moral realism, according to which moral facts are true irrespective of what anyone might think of them, that such facts are not part of the material world accessible to empirical science, and that we have knowledge of these moral facts through intuition. This is presumably an extreme minority position within secular academe.

I'm not necessarily hostile to "moral realism" or "dualism", and I even liked the author's self-assured and arrogant style, after reading the meeker arguments for a somewhat similar position by Russ Shafer-Landau. I wonder what would happen if Michael Huemer, Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath would be placed in the same TV studio? That would be great fun!

Still, I must admit that I found Huemer's book to be ultimately disappointing. I never understood its central point: the intuitions themselves. Huemer writes that we have intuitive knowledge of many things. Most of his examples turn out to be self-evident logical truths, such as "If A is greater than B, and B is greater than C, then C is smaller than A". But in what meaningful sense is that an "intuitive" truth? It's ultimately based on empirical observation and rational reasoning, not "intuition". It also turns out that moral truths are *not* of this kind, according to Huemer. Here, the author makes the somewhat weaker claim that moral truths might be prima facie true, while not being self-evident. Moral truths are weaker than logical truths. But if so, can we really rely on intuitions to solve our moral conundrums? What is prima facie true might not actually be true, so it seems we need something else than mere intuitions! From the top of my head, some form of rationalism seem to be in order here.

I can't put my finger on it, but I suspect Huemer might be wrong!

"Ethical intuitionism", while not a book for the general public, is nevertheless surprisingly easy to read for a scholarly philosophy book. I take that to mean that Huemer wants to address students. It's not uninteresting, but in the end this student remains unconvinced.

OK, I haven't read this book, but I read a long essay the author wrote on the ethics of Ayn Rand- He's an excellent writer- doesn't use unnecessary jargon, seems to be balanced and open- no big axe to grind- Just wanted to give him a shout out since he's not too bad for a philosophy professor.