21 Comments
⭠ Return to thread

Do you have an account of surface level versus deep intuitions? How can you tell them apart? And do you think other ethicists just don’t know the difference? If so, why not? If not, what’s the explanation for the dominance of common sense theorizing then?

Expand full comment

I don't have a precise analysis. But, roughly speaking, by "surface level" I mean concerned with ordinary everyday judgments (e.g. which acts are right or wrong; or, in the perceptual case, what features we perceive and where they are located), whereas the "deep" level addresses questions that are less often asked, but may in some sense *underlie* (or even explain) the surface level.

I expect others will have no trouble telling these apart once prompted (and given examples of what I have in mind). But most ethicists don't think much about what I identify as the most relevant "deeper" questions -- questions about preferability, and the link between what we ought to prefer and what we ought to do. They tend to be very focused on the surface level--the "narrow reflective equilibrium" of systematizing their intuitive deontic verdicts. So it takes some prompting to get them to shift to the "wide reflective equilibrium" of bringing that whole system of deontic verdicts into coherence with plausible judgments about objective preferability, etc.

Most ethicists haven't given much serious thought to consequentialism. They aren't aware of the deeper respects in which it is intuitive. They misconceive of the dispute as between "intuitive" non-consequentialism and "theoretically simple" consequentialism, which makes it easy to dismiss the latter. So a major focus of my work is trying to draw attention to the respects in which consequentialism is actually deeply intuitive.

I outline my primary research project here:

https://rychappell.substack.com/p/bleeding-heart-consequentialism

Expand full comment
Error