thoughts about the intuition for good
Human beings, across all eras and regions, have an Intuition for what is “good.”1
Even if some of us do not admit it, we all behave as if there is a genuine right and wrong. Consider some common objections to poor behavior. Many logically simplify or are isomorphic to the statement “That is not fair/right.”2 Such a claim presupposes the existence of a correct standard of behavior. You should also note that whenever you present an offender with these objections, they seldom dispute the presupposed standard of behavior itself. Instead, they often qualify their behavior and argue that it was not in violation of the standard.3 Of course, not everyone’s Intuition is identical, but that does not undermine its existence. Just as humans are considered bipedal creatures despite the existence of paraplegics, the existence of a universal Intuition remains despite some individual exceptions.
Some may argue that Intuition is the pure product of culture, but this cannot be the case. The view that humans, throughout history, have adopted many substantively diverging moralities is false. Superficial differences have existed, but the fundamental traits of moral codes are surprisingly consistent4 given history’s vast expanse.5 It would be inaccurate to label these moralities as completely different. Because there are constants amongst all moralities, it is unreasonable to assume that all cultures came to the same conclusion by happenstance. There must be a deeper explanation for why all cultures celebrate, for example, courage or honesty.6
But if Intuition exists, how do we explain changes in morality over time? We may point to witch hunts as a poignant example. Centuries ago, people convicted and executed others for being “witches”—those who used supernatural/demonic powers to inflict harm on others. However, we no longer do so because of developments, in fact, not morality. We do not burn witches at the stake because we understand more of the world. We no longer believe witches exist. If we still did, burning such intrinsically evil entities does not seem so immoral. There was no moral advance, only gained knowledge. This applies to many “immoral” historic acts. One may object that despite this, Intuition cannot be universal or natural since we learn it from parents or other mentors. A man who falls from a coconut tree on a secluded island would not have the same Intuition for “good” that we do. This may be true, but I do not consider this objection worthwhile. The same coconut tree emanated man would also not understand calculus.7 But that does not change the truth of calculus. Calculus is not “arbitrary” or the mere product of culture simply because parents or other mentors teach it. It remains true in the most significant sense; similarly, our Intuition for good—while taught—still communicates essential truths.
This Intuition is not just another instinct that governs our decision-making.8 Imagine you were walking through the city late at night. As you pass a dark alleyway, you hear a woman cry out in distress. How do you react and how would it affect you? This scenario most likely inflames two instincts within you, the one to help others and that of fear. Which one wins? In animals, it would be the stronger of the two. But curiously, even in scenarios where we feel fear more strongly, we know that the right thing to do is to help. Our Intuition for good has come into play. If we do not follow it, we will feel guilt despite our best attempts to rationalize our behavior.9 Intuition discriminates between conflicting instincts and points us toward what is good. When we do not follow through, it burdens us with guilt. Thus, referring to Intuition as just another instinct downplays its importance. At the very least, it is a “super-instinct” and has a higher function than the other “regular” instincts.
Intuition is not an extrapolation of our tastes, as an emotivist may claim. When someone acts unjustly, we react poorly—even if their behavior does not directly harm us. Visualize the following two scenarios: (1) A man carelessly throws out his arms in a grandiose gesture, accidentally striking your arm, and (2) A man throws a punch at your arm but whiffs. Who are you most irritated by? While the man who accidentally hit you caused more direct harm and is more inconvenient, we are most insulted by the man who swung and missed. Intuition deemed the more inconvenient behavior more acceptable. Therefore, it cannot be the case that Intuition is purely self-interest based.
This essay is highly adapted from/inspired by C.S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity. I am writing to test my memorization and because my peers refuse to read the original work. After all, I consider it worthwhile.↩
Even amongst those who reject the notion of objective right and wrong, such claims remain common.↩
To illustrate this point, consider a hypothetical where your friend breaks a promise made to you. When confronted with this fact, it is likely not the case that they would argue “Promises shouldn’t be kept.” Most probably, they would either admit wrongdoing or dispute the nature of the promise. Rather than challenge the validity of keeping promises in general, they would argue why their specific circumstance justifies the breaking of a promise (“I didn’t realize I would be so busy,” “I didn’t know what I was promising,” etc.)↩
Civilizations may disagree over “How many wives should a man have” but they do not disagree that “Man should not have any woman he wants at any moment; he should be committed.”↩
For example, ancient Hindu, Jewish, Babylonian, Egyptian, Greek, and Chinese civilizations all emphasized a comparable duty to treat your elders well. The same pattern is found across civilizations and epochs for numerous other responsibilities/precepts. Refer to the appendix of C.S. Lewis’ The Abolition of Man for a more comprehensive list.↩
It cannot be self-interest as I will later discuss.↩
Or at the very least, a different and likely poorer understanding of it.↩
Like the desire to help others, love, and fear↩
Note that these attempts will likely presuppose the “correct” action. It will not make the case that helping a distressed woman is wrong, but that it was a trap or that you would have been equally harmed.↩