Ethics And Intuitions By Peter Singer

In his 2005 paper “Ethics and Intuitions,” Peter Singer seeks to find a new role for intuitions in moral theorizing in light of studies by Jonathan Haidt and Joshua Greene, which seem to cast doubt on the reliability of moral intuitions. These studies suggest that much of our moral reasoning is less based in rationalizing and more based in instinctual “gut” reactions, and that these instincts can be explained in terms of their evolutionary history. Further, Greene in particular demonstrates that these moral instincts can be manipulated in order to give contradicting reports, suggesting that moral intuitions are unreliable. Singer, noting how moral theorists have thus far been unable to give an account of morality without relying on moral intuitions, …show more content…
Consider the previous example. If we are discussing intuitions then we must exclude prior beliefs, cultural norms, and the theoretical beliefs. Thus, the only sensible explanation for such an intuition is that one must necessarily have an instinctual concern for the wellbeing of others. Another word for this is “compassion,” and, though it doesn’t elicit the same visceral response as disgust or anger, compassion certainly is a form of emotion. Consider how one might respond if they lacked any capacity for compassion, such a person is often referred to as a psychopath. If, Singer were correct in his claim that some moral intuitions are purely “rational,” then we would expect to see psychopaths reliably answering such fundamental moral questions¬. However, psychopaths repeatedly fail to demonstrate any ability for moral reasoning, let alone reliable moral intuitions, suggesting that they lack the necessary emotional hardware. Thus, emotions and moral intuitions are inextricably linked; much in the same way physical attraction and primal instincts are deeply connected. One may rationalize why they are physically attracted to their partner, citing several reasons that seem ostensibly divorced from primal instincts, but nevertheless physical attraction itself is deeply visceral and biologically rooted, and no amount …show more content…
Unfortunately, just as all moral intuitions must require emotions, all emotions must require an evolutionary past. Consider again the proposition that the death of a person is a bad thing. I have already shown that this elicits an intuition that is necessarily–at least to some degree–emotional. But where does that emotion come from? While it is much easier to trace the evolutionary history of stronger emotions such as fear and disgust, even weaker emotions like compassion have their primeval origins. It is likely that over the countless millennia when homo sapiens subsisted in small groups, compassion was an advantageous trait as it would have contributed to cooperation and reciprocity. However, a possible objection is that all human features by definition have an evolutionary past–as human traits don’t just arise out of the ether¬– and thus such an observation is trivial at best. While it is true to say that all human features must be derived from evolution, it is not true to say that all human features have an evolutionary explanation–meaning that not all human traits carry an evolutionary advantage. Consider our most human trait: consciousness. It is still far from clear as to why or how humans developed