intuitionism

Moral ontology and moral logic constitute the key discussions in metaethics. The primary issue in moral ontology concerns whether values are real, while in moral logic, the focus is on whether "ought" can be derived from "is." Viewing the deep interconnection between metaethical issues, the impossibility of deriving "ought" from "is" is often seen as a corollary of moral none-realism. However, despite his belief in the reality of values, Moore rejects the derivation of "ought" from "is." Adopting a descriptive-analytical method, this article first explains Moore's perspective on this matter and then critically examines it. As its innovation, the findings reveal that Moore's view rejecting the derivation of "ought" from "is" is flawed. This flaw stems from his incorrect analysis of moral realism and the way he draws moral values from reality.

In this article, by analyzing the opinions of Avicenna and Moore, about the indefinability of good and bad morals, their attitude is explained from the epistemological point of view, The main problem of the research is Avicenna and Moore's attitude about criticizing the naturalistic criterion and criteria for carrying moral characteristics such as good and bad in moral issues. Avicenna states in his opinions that moderation as a metaphysical and natural matter cannot be a criterion for the good or badness of moral issues in all fields, and Moore, by analyzing the naturalistic fallacy, considers pleasure or harmony with nature as the criterion and criterion for carrying good and bad. He does not know moral issues. The results of the research show that the approach of these two thinkers to prove their claim is to pay attention to the logical problem that occurs in the comparison of knowing good and bad with things such as moderation, pleasure, and harmony with nature. To answer the problem, Avicenna and Moore defend the non-naturalistic realism of moral propositions, in the meantime, emphasizing the intuition of the characteristics in the intellectual intuition of the people to find criteria and criteria for the truth and falsity of moral propositions makes it possible to discuss the opinions of these two thinkers. The research method is to analyze the content of the opinions of these two philosophers in order to create a dialogue to compare their opinions.

This article explains and compares the views of Ibn Sina and G.E. Moore in the field of realist ethics and while discussing the method of intuition in recognizing moral characteristics. Realism in ethics means the objectivity of moral propositions, and therefore moral properties are intuitive. The main issue of research on the formulation of Ibn Sina's views, along with the principles of realism and the method of intuition, is whether the moral propositions under popular opinion follow the same principles that Moore put forward in the discussion of realism in ethics and how they can be intuitive. Moore's moral realism is based on the intuitionism of moral qualities such as good and evil, which are unacceptable to the natural or metaphysical. According to Ibn Sina, moral realism is defined and intuitive based on the moral presuppositions such as good and bad. In this attitude, the good and the bad for the soul are explained as a being whose exaltation and happiness is a real thing. The results of this study show that for Moore, the relationship between moral issues and predicates such as good and bad is an intuitive thing, which is defined as a good relationship with the greatest possible good, and this combination and understanding requires reflection and intellectual maturity of the moral agent. According to Ibn Sina, the relationship between moral issues and moral presuppositions such as good and bad is explained on the basis of the reputation of moral propositions and the intuitions of the wise of the people.

One of the concepts discussed in meta ethics which is applied in moral situations and has an important role in moral judgments, is obligation or duty which is normative. William David Ross was a philosopher who talked about this subject in detail and differentiated this concept with that of value. He was highly influenced by Prichard’s thoughts, therefore it is important to scrutinize his moral ideas. This paper tries to examine his intuitionism and meta ethical view in light of Prichard’s thoughts. The method of this research is comparative- analytic, and has used books and on line resources in order to see in what extent he accepted Prichard’s ideas and in what extent we can call his thought new. Finally, this research concludes that although Ross was was highly influenced by Prichard, he could overcome his difficulty and bring up his new idea about primafacie duties and differentiate the concept of obligation with that of good according to his meta ethical views.