A philosophical approach to ethics of this kind allows students to use their ethical intuitions — the knowledge provided by their own experience — to revise and structure their conceptions of value, and, on that basis, critically evaluate their general social and political roles, and select the appropriate actions in a particular situation.
So many of these ethical intuitions we know to be wrong, they're inconsistent.
No, unlike the naked emperor there is a clear substance to the genius of human ethical intuitions.
But the European approach runs the risk of being insensitive to context and may not match our ethical intuitions in individual cases.
For ethical intuitions this non-inferred basis of knowledge is self-evident truth grasped by intuition.[3] It is, however, important to keep intuition and self-evidence separate for a number of reasons.
There is a clear need to facilitate students' cognizance and informed reflection on the impact of moral intuitions on ethical reasoning, as is evidenced by the prevalence of moral intuition in student responses, in contrast to the lack of such reasoning during in-class discussions.
Debates contemplating the role of moral intuition in ethical reasoning have existed since the times of Plato and Aristotle and continue to persist in contemporary fields of cognitive science and moral psychology (Haidt, 2001; Singer, 2005; Sinnott-Armstrong, 2008a, b).
Finally, I will argue that these two early Chinese conceptions of spontaneity can help us to understand some of our own intuitions about the ethical value of spontaneity.
Even in US, there is often a clash between these ethical standards and the moral intuitions of many physicians [ 30, 31].
Addressing moral intuitions in class via role-play scenarios allows students to elicit their "gut feelings" and enables them to consider the interplay of moral intuitions with traditional ethical theories.
