Ethical foundations of the left

[Kenneth MacKendrick]

At 09:01 PM 7/24/01 -0500, you wrote:
>But if all you mean is that good arguments (philosophical or otherwise) do
>not convince people who hold intuitions contradictory to the conclusion why
>not say that? Why use the word trump? The intuitions dont win. In fact the
>person with the intuition loses when the argument is sound and the premisses
>true. A person with a strong intuition that God will save him or her when he
>jumps out of an airplane at 10,000 feet with no parachute may not be
>convinced by being reminded of elementary physical facts. Of course
>restraining the person not argument would probably be the appropriate course
>of action not argument. The fact that an argument may not be pragmatically
>useful in convincing someone with strong intuitions opposed to the
>conclusion tells only against its pragmatic usefulness in these
>circumstances.
>
>Cheers, Ken Hanly

I think the word intuition here is being overextended. I think it would be 
more appropriate to talk about a belief in God rather than just an 
intuition about God (at least in the case of someone jumpting out of an 
airplane at 10,000 feet with no parachute). A belief, in good pragmatic 
fashion, is a rule of behaviour. If one 'believes' something, then one acts 
in accordance with those beliefs (except in instances of discrepancy 
between communicative and behavioural experience). And intuition is 
something different. In linguistic terms, and someone who knows better 
please correct me, a belief is illocutionary, it is backed up by a habit of 
commitment to action. An intuition is propositional, i.e. just waiting to 
be redeemed, recognized, verified, and etc. (pardon the pu).

clarifications limited,
ken