A Philosopher's Blog

Appeal to Intuition

Posted in Reasoning/Logic by Michael LaBossiere on January 4, 2008

This method is a blend of emotional appeal and logical argumentation.


   One problem in creating moral principles and theories is finding a starting point. A related problem is finding a way to test the results of a principle/theory without creating another principle or theory.

If a person gives a reason for the principle or theory, then it is reasonable to ask why that reason should be accepted. If a reason is given for the reason, then one could still ask for a reason for that reason. This could create an infinite regress.

In addition to finding a starting point for principles and theories, there is also the general problem of settling an issue.

Fortunately, there is a generally accepted method of addressing these problems. This method is that one can begin appealing to our pre-philosophical intuitions.


Intuitions & Arguments


In the case of an appeal to intuition, the goal of the argument is to “motivate” the reader’s intuitions so s/he accepts your position on the issue. This makes the argument something of a blend between persuasion and argumentation.

It is an argument in the sense that the goal is to support a position through reason. It is similar to persuasion in that the goal is also to get the audience accept your view because you have presented something that appeals to their intuitions.


Basic Method

The basic method is simple in that it involves just two steps. Its main disadvantage is that it tends to be more in the realm of persuasion than argument.


   Step 1. Show that X violates (or coincides with) our intuitions.

   Step 2. Conclude that X is incorrect/implausible/wrong (or correct/plausible/right).


Story Method

A more complex method has three steps and combines both persuasive and argumentative elements.


Step 1. Present a plausible and appealing story or scenario that aims at motivating the target’s intuitions towards your position on the issue.

Step 2. Present a developed argument that shows the reader why the story or scenario rationally supports your position.

Step3. Conclude that your position is correct.


Weakness and Strength

   A major weak point of this method is that moral intuitions are intuitions and not the result of reflection and argument. Because of that fact, this method is strong and effective with people who share intuitions, but tends to be weak and ineffective with people who do not share the same intuitions.


Testing Theories and Principles

This method is a useful tool in philosophy and is regularly used to check theories, principles, and such. If a theory or principle violates our intuitions, the theory, etc. becomes less plausible unless an adequate reason can be given as to why our intuitions are mistaken in this matter. If a theory or principle matches our intuitions, the theory, principle, etc. is more plausible.


Example #1

In the Bible, Deuteronomy 21:18-21 says that stubborn and disobedient children should be stoned to death in public. However, this seems to violate our moral intuitions about just grounds for capital punishment. Therefore, the stoning of disobedient children is not acceptable.


Example #2





In the real world, Bad Bill’s unjust approach could lead him to a bad end.  However, even in reality the chance is rather slight. In the real world, Polly’s chances of success would be rather low, this showing that her choice is a poor one-even in reality. Given these conditions, it should be clear that Bill’s choice for injustice is preferable to Polly’s choice.









There are various ways to respond to this method. Each of which will be considered in turn. First, it can be argued that the intuition is flawed. A way to do this is to present a counter-intuition: an argument by intuition that goes against the original argument. The idea is to show that the opposing intuition is more appealing, thus undercutting the original argument.

For example, one might respond to the argument about stoning children in the following way: While it is believed by some that children should not be stoned to death for being disobedient, my moral intuition tells me that one must obey the will of God. Through the Bible God makes it clear that he wills that disobedient children be stoned to death. Therefore the stoning is right and good.

As another example, in the case of the Polly and Bill example, a story could be told in which the just Polly triumphs over the unjust Bill.

Second, one can present an argument aimed to show that the intuition is mistaken. This is done by showing the case against the position the intuition supports is strong enough to reasonable lead us to abandon the intuition.

In the example involving the stoning of children, one might respond as follows: while our intuition might lead us to believe that stoning disobedient children is wrong, the consequences of doing this shows that it is right. Disobedient children are a great burden on their parents and an annoyance to the rest of society. Disobedient children often turn to crime and some become career criminals. Fear of stoning or actual stoning will drastically cut down the number of disobedient children, thus greatly benefiting society. So, stoning disobedient children is morally acceptable.

As a second example, injustice might be argued against in the following manner: While our intuitions might lead us towards injustice, the consequences of doing this show that it is a mistake. Unjust people do great harm to society and even to themselves. Thus, the life of justice is better because it provides a better existence for everyone.

About these ads

One Response

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Jack said, on May 25, 2010 at 1:55 pm

    Thanks for this! I ended up using a link on my philosophy blog:


Leave a Reply


WordPress.com Logo


Twitter picture


Facebook photo


Google+ photo


Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,215 other followers

%d bloggers like this: