 we will today talk about we talked about realism and now let us briefly take a look at what all metaethics theories that we have talked about now if you look at the screen I have made three classification of metaethics which I have managed to scribble in the little space that I left for myself in red. So these are basically three kinds of metaethical foundations now the first one is we have talked about definist theories they are naturalistic or metaphysical what are their criteria well ought can be explained or can be understood in terms of is values may be inferred from facts and ethical terms can be understood in terms of non-ethical terms. So briefly definist theories are naturalistic and metaphysical the ought can be understood in terms of is values may be inferred from facts ethical terms can be understood in terms of non-ethical terms now let us simply try to understand what do we mean by this well when I say definist theories this is a whole school of theories belonging to metaethics and which talks about what is the foundation of the ethical quest now definist theories by the term used refers to definition. So to explain or to define a value term we can take the help of a factual term put even more simplistically when we talked about hedonism or utilitarianism to define good or to understand good or right or any such ethical term we refer to a non-ethical factual empirically available concept like pleasure like happiness. So these are psychological facts these are psychological states. So whenever we are trying to understand the ethical domain in terms of factual domain we are having an implicit assumption of definist metaethics it is naturalistic or also known as metaphysical metaethics. Now metaphysical because even say suppose we say concurrence to a religious word or a religious book or a religious claim or a religious leader can also be understood in terms of definist theory because there the religious book is defining that this is the right thing to do because it is the word of God or it is the word of their leader. So the justification is again coming from something factual or empirical. Now what further does this theory assume this assumes that values may be inferred from facts you remember we sensitized ourselves or we explored the domain of values and facts and how are they connected with each other. Now the naturalistic theories that we earlier talked about claim that they can understand values in terms of facts they can understand right action in terms of what for example in terms of what brings about the greatest happiness of the greatest number this is an example of a naturalistic ethics but it is not confined to naturalistic ethics. Utilitarianism or hedonism is a kind of naturalistic ethics but there are other kinds of it also. So to understand or to define value terms we need factual terms but let us look at an example where perhaps why many places where the naturalistic ethicist is critiqued. Now let us assume that well you are standing on a road and a car is or a vehicle is speedily coming on to you. Now these are the facts of the case like you are standing on a road vehicle is speedily coming on to you and if you do not do anything it is most likely that it will hit you. These are facts but from where in these facts do we get the claim that well I should move out of I should pay attention on the word I should move out of the path of the vehicle I should I ought to give way or I ought to jump out of the way of the vehicle. This is where various critiques have critiqued naturalism that well naturalism understandably gives a domain of facts but from the facts how is a prescription or how is a value or how is a motivation arrived at. Now given that this is the state of affairs that well a vehicle is rushing on to you I ought to jump out of its way. So this ought this motivational should claim is a claim that comes from the agent it is not a part of the description of the scene that once the agent or the person has jumped out of the path of the vehicle that becomes a part of the description of the agent. So what is prescription if followed becomes description but prescription is not a part of description a prescription executed becomes a part of description but a prescription by itself is not a part of description. So this is where the critiques of naturalism argue that well naturalism as a metaethical foundation does not actually give us any norms what to do it only describes the way things are and that is insufficient to arrive at norm. Now if you look at this screen what we basically talked out is summed up over here that well values may be inferred from facts. Now non naturalistic theories would critique that and that ethical terms can be understood in terms of non ethical terms. Now this is what the naturalistic ethicist would have to have us to believe but as we see that there are many gaping loopholes in this theory of naturalism but of course the truth to be arrived at is a vigorous churning between theories and their counter theory claims and claims and counter claims and in their synthesis. So this is definitely that there is no one theory that is completely immune to any criticism but to be aware of criticism is to be refined to refine the theory. So we leave naturalism at the moment right here and then we will move on to what is the second classification the second kind of metaethics which is as we see intuitionism or non naturalistic theories. Let me number them now the intuitionism or non naturalistic theories can be they give up on natural theories and psychological arguments their basic principles and value judgments are intuitive or self-evident. So well where they differ from the definite theories is that values cannot be inferred from facts. Ethical terms cannot be understood in terms of non ethical terms. So what they are crucially saying is that well ethical properties stand for the properties of things. So in a sense their claim comes out to be that well ethical notions self-evident notions just as yellowness pleasantness or any other fundamental question. Now let us explore what do we mean by these non naturalistic theories intuitionism is one of them intuitionism or non naturalistic theories. Now well non naturalistic theories they are different from definite theories because they are not proposing to define ethical terms in terms of non ethical terms. In fact on the other hand they are contrary to definite theories by claiming that ethical terms cannot be understood in terms of non ethical terms. So good is something fundamental. In the history of western philosophy there was a philosopher called G.E. Moore whom we have talked about in a brief manner and the open question argument in which the philosopher tried to show that well the term good or the concept good is in principle indefinable but yet nevertheless it is not meaningless. Now to define something is to reduce it into simpler parts to more fundamental blocks. So when I try to define any complex notion or any notion I will try to explain it in terms of simpler parts. Now there is a problem with definition there is a problem with definition because definition assumes that there are simpler blocks to it. There are simpler components to the term which is intended to be defined. So definition is assuming that well what is wanted or what is going to be defined is a complex object and can be reduced to smaller or more fundamental blocks. Now the second metaethics school or not school exactly but the bunch of theories that we talk about intuitionism or non naturalistic theories do not subscribe to this. They have a claim that ethical terms are fundamental they are self evident. What does this mean? Let us slow down. Let us say if you want to define something as color or something as say are 5 fundamental sense perceptions that we have taste, smell, touch. Now these are fundamental to us and cannot be further simplified for us. We might be able to tell the biochemistry, the physics behind the sensory process that takes place but for one to perceive a color there can be perhaps nothing more fundamental or defining than the very fact that one perceives color and that is the understanding of color. It cannot be defined into more simpler terms. Now these philosophers the non naturalistic philosophers intuitionists claim to give this kind of a position to this to the ethical terms that ethical terms need not be defined rather not need not but cannot be defined in terms of non ethical terms because they are by themselves unanalyzably simple. So what they are basically is unanalyzable and simple. So this is what is meant by self evident. Now when some terms are analyzed are simple and unanalyzable they cannot be further explained or understood in terms of other notions and therefore they are final. So many of us might have a feeling that well all this talk of understanding ethics what is it to understand anything it is to break it into simple power simpler notions or parts that we are familiar with. So if we are familiar with say we talk about say a triangle a triangle we try to understand it in terms of lines and angles which is presumably more fundamental to triangle because lines and angles come together dots and points come together to form a triangle but this assumes that well triangle is a complex entity and can be defined in terms of simpler entities. So there are simpler entities in terms of which it can be defined but now when I say define the color yellow what would you define it as well many of us would perhaps say that well it is defined by the wavelength or the frequency of the light that produces the sensation of yellowness in us. But the sensation of yellowness is it the same thing as the frequency or the wavelength which is a measure but it is not the notion of yellowness the notion of yellowness or the notion of taste is something that we fundamentally have that is a part of how we encounter approach the world that is our framework if making sense of the world same thing like sweetness things may be more sweet less sweet but what is it to be sweet depends on the agent right that I know what is sweet and cannot be further broken down into any simplest it is a simple notion or it is a simple as one would say now ethical terms the intuitionists and the non-naturalists claim that have this kind of a self evidence that is they are no more reducible analyzable understandable in terms of non-ethical terms they are simple so the right action and the good action or the good of an agent is a simple it is to be known by the agent itself we will talk about this next when we finish a classification of these three theories we will talk about intuitionism. Now if you come to the slide the third theory that we talk about is the non-descriptivist theory so this claims that well ethical judgments are not assertions or statements ascribing or denying properties to actions persons or things so in a way these are the non-descriptivist skill claim that these are non-justifiable opinions if we may say example would be emotivism that we have talked about. So now what do the non-descriptivist on the other hand say well the non-descriptivists are of the opinion that well as a meta ethical foundation that ethical terms do not describe anything they are perhaps exhortations to action they are expressions of feelings but they are not statements that is they are not in the domain of truth and falsity in philosophy as particularly in logic when we talk about statements or propositions more accurately propositions is a claim made in a sentence and has which can have the value of either true or false. So a question is not a proposition many sentences can contain the same proposition so non-descriptivists are of the opinion that well there is ethical claims are not propositions. Now we will talk about non-descriptivists in a few moments to come but before that let us talk about the topic we choose to talk about today is intuitionism. Before we talk about intuitionism let us take a look at what let us remind ourselves of the fundamental classification between consequentialism and deontology. So the classification where well consequentialism it depends on the right action is determined by the good consequences to be brought about deontology on the other hand claims that well the right action is independent of the consequences that it brings about. So basically the question that they are asking is that these two theories are answers to the same question only different answers to the same question the question being that how is the right related to the good now if consequentialists would answer that well the right is wholly determined by the good or is wholly determined by the good whereas the deontologists would say that well or the right is independent of the good. Now this is basically we worked out or brought back the classification between a consequentialism and deontology. Now intuitionism is a form of deontology is a form of deontological ethics. Now let us just explore that well we have talked about deontological ethics before and what does intuitionism say about that well the intuition comes from the word intuitionism naturally evidently comes from the word intuition which perhaps most of us would understand as almost some mysterious way of knowing of intuiting or some even if we do not do not term it mysterious but as something which is scientifically undemonstrable way of knowing what is intuitionism or what is the solution to it now unfortunately there are a lot of misconceptions about intuitionism that make it seem to be much more mysterious than what it actually is. So let us just have a brief talk about intuitionism what is meant by intuitionism. Now the intuitionists are a part of the non-naturalistic claim which non-naturalistic metaethics which claim that well moral terms or ethical terms are self-evident. Now what does what do they mean when they say that it is self-evident is it that by some mysterious way we come to know whether this is the right thing to do or that is not the right thing to do or how do we decide on an action we come to know by intuition and in a way then there is no theorizing at all it is just a matter of your intuition what perhaps the emotivist called feeling the intuitionist called intuition this is incorrect. Intuitionists are need or deserve a little more attention that perhaps the history of philosophy has given to them now the intuitionists make a claim that moral facts are self-evident they are self-evident in a way that we do not arrive at it from an algorithm. So let us put it down let us say ethical terms cannot be understood in terms of non-ethical terms ethical terms are or ethical notions are self-evident now this is a portion that we would require certain clarification before we can truly evaluate or assess the meaning of self-evidence in terms of ethical notions. So ethical terms cannot be understood in terms of non-ethical terms ethical notions are self-evident and what we would like to say is that well it is still a matter of theorizing now the preliminary instance let me say why do I make this claim that is intuitionism a matter of moral theorizing now if take a let us take let us imagine if intuitionism is claiming that well moral truths are self-evident that they are not algorithmic that if you take a look at this slide that well moral reasoning is not blind dead algorithms now when I say that well moral notions are not blind dead algorithms perhaps I can best explain it first as an example in terms of two very essential two very very notions essential to law well let us postulate let me put forth a question to you can we imagine something called an let us let us term it an AJM right on the lines of ATM which is an automatic judging machine to be used in law courts in place of judges now this is the thought experiment that I would like you to focus on that let us look at the screen and say that well the automatic judging machine or AJM is to be used in law courts in place of judges now is that feasible now think over it now would you find this to be feasible let us say India has a whole battery of law cases pending and there is tremendous of pressure on the legal system there is insufficient manpower and it takes a lot of time and court cases prolong so we would like it to be shortened we would like it to be more efficient let us design let us ask the engineers to design this AJM an automatic judging machine now this automatic judging machine will be a very of course a very powerful computer which will know all the law cases that are that have taken place will be familiar with all the relevant codes of the constitution of the legal acts to be abided by will also be will have an excellent memory of precedences and all such claims now do these can we ask can the law minister or the law ministry ask the engineers to build such a machine or would he be well making a fool of himself or would he not even dare to ask such a question or is this a wrong question that is what most of us would think that well of course it is a wrong question I mean how can you have an automated automatic judging machine or an automatic telling machine we can understand somebody that this is something that some machine that dispenses money some machine that does a lot of calculations something that even human beings cannot do and so on and so forth but having an automatic judging machine what does that mean well let me explain as we keep talking we will come to know the perspective of the intuitionists well why do we think there cannot be an automatic judging machine if at all we think so and probably many of you would be thinking that well there cannot be an automatic judging machine to replace the wise old judge with the way gone that there is something about a judge's job that cannot be seen in terms of algorithms because when we are proposing an automatic judging machine what are we saying we are trying to understand that well what does a bank teller do a bank teller does something which is to put simplistically which can be made algorithmic or mechanical that well you present a check she sees what is the balance in your account verifies whether this account is yours by telling the signature makes a deduction in the account gives you that relevant money now this was what the teller did one of the many things that the teller did now engineers could design a machine that could do the same thing now it identifies you with your ATM card and the pin that you enter it has direct access to your bank balance so it verifies that you have the same bank balance and accordingly it error-proofly counts the notes and dispatches it or releases it in the ATM counter now this is what happened when the teller became automated so there was no more a person to do that job now can the judge's job be automated in such a manner it would be countless benefits for it to happen if many of you or if you are one of them who are not comfortable with such an idea or who would further say that such a thing is not possible well are then you are coming close to the intuitionist claim now let us imagine what does a take a look at what does happen in a court case well the first thing we start with is evidence then there is arguments postulations testimonies feasibility let us assume this all against reasoning or argumentation to finally have the verdict now simplistically put this is the basic format of what happens in a court case right how does one arrive from the evidence to the verdict now evidence is something which we can perhaps equal with natural facts they are empirical they ought to be demonstrable or they ought to be provable that and it is something that perhaps even a machine or an algorithm can detect now from these facts how do you make a judgment now if we can arrive from natural is this a process of is this an algorithm the intuitionists answer no that this is not an algorithm and because it is not an algorithm so we always need the human element here so how to assess and evaluate how to assess and evaluate the evidence to reach the verdict now this is a philosopher called lake pattern lake Philip Straton sorry the philosopher called Philip Straton Lake is credited with giving this analogy of between evidence and verdict now having known the evidence can we reach a verdict we do reach a verdict but can a machine reach a verdict so when the intuitionists say that well certain moral fact or moral claims or moral concepts are self evident and cannot be explained in terms of non ethical terms or factual terms or empirical terms or what around us all then we are making a self case of self evidence a case of judgment from self evidence now how does the judge make this case at all how does the judge bring forth a verdict at all is it out of concoction it is how does the judge concoct a verdict if at all he does it or she does it now this is where the intuitionists come in their claim is that well a verdict is not cannot be algorithmically related to the evidence and there is where the human element the what critics have criticized as the mysterious element in arriving at the assessment the weightage given to which evidence is required to come arrive at judgment so it is perhaps to put it in a jocular way in the final bastion human bastion that resists mechanization of course that would be a cliched way of putting the notion but well in a sense the intuitionists are of this claim that well when we talk about self evidence it is not about any magical mysterious self evidence but because moral terms are so simple and unanalyzably and there of human that well we require a human being to judge not a not possibly a machine because a machine represents algorithm and if this cannot be put in the terms of an algorithm we cannot judge the same so when intuitionists are making claim that it is self evidence what they mean is that well no matter how the evidence is presented to assess the evidence we have to have a the human agency is intervention to arrive at what is self evidence notion of truth moral truth and thereof make a judgment so this is simplistically put what is meant by the self evidence term used by intuitionists now let us we earlier talked about a philosopher called W. D. Ross now W. D. Ross was an example of intuitionist well Ross put forth in our earlier talks when we talked about moral theories not metaethics we talked about Ross philosophy and we can go back to the earlier lectures to talk about this this was the philosopher that we talked about and we talked about something called the prima facie duties. So let me just briefly tell you in two sentences about what Ross claim was that Ross is a non-naturalistic intuitionist philosopher so Ross claim is that well there are certain set of any situation presents a certain set of prima facie duties duties of non-maloval duties of reparations so he puts out a force list of 6 to 7 duties which are prima facie duties but what makes these prima facie duties actual duties is the human element. Now that there are various kinds of duties which are fundamental but well sometimes say it is a duty to be where is the moral dilemma the moral dilemma comes when there is a conflict between two duties or two or more duties so when I say that well I would like to be nonviolent and I would like to be truthful but I see that well there are numerous imaginable cases where I would have to sacrifice one to hold on to the other. So in which situation can I sacrifice one and hold on to the other so Ross puts forth these sets of duties but again puts the final ball in the human agent's court that depending on the circumstances the agent in concern has to make a question and evaluate and assess the various factors around the decision around the moral dilemma to take a final call. So sometimes I would say the conflict that we talked about between being honest and being nonviolent now sometimes if I have to be let us imagine the classic platonic case that well a friend has loaned you a firearm and is gone on a voyage comes back insane but because you are an honest person you would like to return what was given to you for safe keeping but you are also a nonviolent person or you want to propagate nonviolent so you know that this friend of yours who went for the voyage is now insane and would perhaps take the weapon and cause harm to others or to himself. Now here you clearly have a contradiction between two duties so you would have to decide so that is why Ross leaves that decision that well the standard deontologist tries to work out a dead blind algorithm to given a solution to a nonviolent person to every moral dilemma the intuitionist on the other hand leaves that much of space because of the claim of the intuitionist that well this final space cannot be algorithmized and it needs a human agent to observe the evidence the what the situation that the moral dilemma presents and then take the decision there cannot be a moral calculator or a moral positioning system in lines of the global positioning system to give a mechanical answer to the question. So that is a question that the agent has to think over SS for himself or herself and decide and that is where that is perhaps more the case how most of us go through life so that makes a case for self evidence of the final step of moral decision making. So simplistically put intuitionism is not as mysterious as we believe it to be or as we as it is reputed to be so we try to bring about balance between an algorithmic assessment of the situation and a final moral claim that is to come from the human agent from assessing the weightages that is the self evident or the irreducible part of the decision making procedure.