Can we trust our Moral Intuitions?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

In ethics, some theories rely heavily on our moral intuitions. In a way, all thought experiments (like the trolley problem) test an ethical problem against our intuitions. The metaethical theory I like most (G.E. Moore's moral nonnaturalism) requires us to have accurate moral intuitions in order to make correct moral judgments.

But there's a problem here. Psychological study suggests our moral intuitions are heavily influenced by norms acquired from our cultural environment. Why does this matter? Well it suggests that (if we are relying on moral intuitions to furnish us with correct judgments) then there may be fundamental moral disagreement.

Fundamental moral disagreement is different than "regular ol' moral disagreement" because it suggests that rational people with accurate information can come to two different moral conclusions. All philosophers are aware that moral disagreement exists. That's not a problem. That can be explained away by prejudices and bad information (false premises). The problem is moral disagreement in "idealized circumstances."

Some realist theories (like moral naturalism) do not depend on moral intuitions, but still an analysis of them is still worthwhile.

Anyone have opinions on this? Can we trust our moral intuitions?

  
When  science & medicine conflict with logic,   guess who wins?  

With logic,  atheists insist theists have BoP.  In science/medicine,  we don't burden the incompetent.  We also don't send the delusional out looking for something which doesn't exist & then mock  the delusional's  search results.  
This type of logic would be a 3rd degree felony in a clinical setting where  YECs belong.  
We also don't demand the delusional prove their delusion is real.  We don't debate the delusional to prove our superiority.  When the delusional are of noncompliant nature,  we note them as such instead of noting our disgust for the delusional.  
This ^^ comes naturally to me as a clinician.  Gawd is a cognitive issue, not a logical or philosophical issue per my perspective which I do not expect lay ppl to have any familiarity with.
When atheists hold theists up to elite standards of logic/scrutiny & then refuse to care about elite standards of science /medicine, 
then they  are  corrupted

---

  
CAn we trust our moral intuitions?  
I vote no. 
When  science & medicine conflict with logic,   guess who wins?  

With logic,  atheists insist theists have BoP.  In science/medicine,  we don't burden the incompetent.  We also don't send the delusional out looking for something which doesn't exist & then mock  the delusional's  search results.  
This type of logic would be a 3rd degree felony in a clinical setting where  YECs belong.  
We also don't demand the delusional prove their delusion is real.  We don't debate the delusional to prove our superiority.  When the delusional are of noncompliant nature,  we note them as such instead of noting our disgust for the delusional.  
This ^^ comes naturally to me as a clinician.  Gawd is a cognitive issue, not a logical or philosophical issue per my perspective which I do not expect lay ppl to have any familiarity with.
When atheists hold theists up to elite standards of logic/scrutiny & then refuse to care about elite standards of science /medicine, 
then they  are  corrupted

Even if any of that is reliable, a gorilla in a tutu is still funny.



Boru