Essay Sample: Intuitionism vs Rationalism

In the instance of moral relativism, the idea of intuitionism or rationalism is often debated in terms of their importance. Both of these topics play into the idea that morals are relative to people, however how these judgments are made differs. Intuitionism plays more of a role in moral judgements because it comes before rationalization and people would not bother to rationalize their decisions if intuition was not a part of it.

This debate is over which of these ideals play a larger role in the judgements made based on moral relativism, the idea that moral judgments are different across cultures. The difference between intuitionism and rationalism is that in intuitionism it is said that moral judgments are intuitively made and based on emotions, however with rationalism moral judgments are made based on reasoning. Two of the philosophers who argue in favor of intuitionism are Jesse Prinz and Jonathan Haidt. I will be taking a deeper exploration into this debate and the reasons why intuitionism is favored by those two philosophers. Without discounting rationalism, which does play a role in moral judgments, however, intuitionism comes first and is the main influencer of the morals people choose to develop.

Jesse Prinz argues that moral judgments are based on intuitions that are shaped by people’s cultures and upbringing. Part of his argument that intuitionism is more plausible has to do with children. He states, “Children begin to learn values when they are very young, before they can reason effectively” (Prinz). Thus, to believe that rationalism is more plausible would imply that you are assuming that children are not capable of learning moral values. Is it fair to say that children are incapable of forming morals?

Morals in children are typically formed on a learning basis, meaning they can be produced through conditioning. Through this process, children learn that certain actions are rewarded and others are punishable. This would mean that they are learning values, but they are associating those with the outcome of their actions. When rewarded a child would feel happy, a good emotional response, so they would continue actions that elicit this response. Vice versa, they would associate punishments with negative emotions, and would try to prevent that response from occurring.

Prinz also discusses the idea of emotional osmosis and how learning can occur based on seeing other people’s responses to events. Children learn based on their perception of others and the actions they take. “Consummate imitators, children internalize the feelings expressed by their parents, and, when they are a bit older, their peers.” (Prinz). This means that children are able to read the room and discover what is good or bad based on the emotions they can sense. If someone is crying due to something, it can obviously be assumed that the cause was bad. For instance, if a parent is upset due to news footage of a war that is beginning, it can help build the moral values in a child that believes that violence and fighting is bad.

Children forming these responses based on the emotional reactions of those around them is an essential part of forming moral values in future and younger generations. With parenting and parental styles, it is often seen that reasoning does not work to discipline or help children. This is because the basis for this reasoning is not yet instilled in them. “No amount of reasoning can engender a moral value, because all values are, at bottom, emotional attitudes” (Prinz). Reasoning is not a practical function of instilling moral values in children because they do not comprehend it. It is much easier to comprehend emotional responses to actions than reasons that justify or debate those values.

To extend the idea that intuition drives the rational reasoning for moral judgments, Haidt often uses a metaphor of an elephant and its rider. He utilizes this metaphor to express the first principle of moral psychology, which is “Intuitions come first, strategic reasoning second.” (Haidt, 52). Haidt argues that the Humean model, where reason is a servant to intuition, allows for a better understanding of moral judgements, than the Platonic model where reason rules. In the metaphor used, the elephant represents emotions/intuition and the rider is rationalization/reasoning. The rider may seem like it is in control of the elephant, but at the end of the day the elephant is actually the one acting, so realistically it is the one in charge. While it is possible for the elephant to fall subject to the wishes of the rider, the elephant ultimately makes the decision of whether or not it should follow the rider’s orders.

In terms of the metaphor, this means that while our actions may bend to the will of our reasoning, our emotions are ultimately the deciding factor. We may be able to rationalize the moral decisions we have made, however our emotions and intuition are what drives that initial decision. This argument can be furthered by the idea that the rider is trying to anticipate and justify the actions of the elephant. This would provide evidence that people try to use rationalism to justify the actions they took based on intuitionism. Ultimately, this means that our emotions provide the basis for rationalizing decisions.

If we did not intensely believe in our moral judgments, then there would be no need to rationalize them. In order to come up with the reasoning for an action, we must first feel strongly about it and associate certain emotions with it. Thus, our reasoning is a contingency of our emotional responses. Take for instance, the scenario of people visiting a country where it is culturally common and acceptable to eat bugs. The initial response that person would have is disgust, now that the emotion has been acknowledged, the person could come up with a reasoning for why they felt that way while witnessing someone else eat the bugs. No harm is being caused to the bugs or person, and it does not directly impact the person watching, however they would still decide that it is gross and should not be done. The emotion leads and then the reasoning for why they felt that way may follow. But overall, the emotional response is what caused the rationalizing to occur.