In his recent debate with Dr. Onkar Ghate, Prof. Michael Huemer argues for ethical intuitionism, which essentially states that people have a moral faculty, called the conscience or intuition, that like the faculties of vision and hearing, presents self-evident truths - moral truths. Faced with the observation that cultures throughout history have widely disagreed on these truths, intuitionists have retreated to majority vote. This is exactly what Prof. Huemer advocates throughout the debate. By taking simple polls of the population, Huemer would define the highest-ranked response as the intuitional - and thus moral - response.

But consider this idea in detail for a moment. As Tara Smith does in her book Viable Values (p. 25), examine a sample of “claims many regard as true”:

It is wrong to cheat; it is wrong to engage in extramarital affairs; it is wrong to have an abortion, to murder, to engage in homosexual acts, to be dishonest or disloyal, to be unjust or ungrateful, to be proud or to refuse to forgive.

Now, presumably Prof. Huemer would list all of these examples in his poll, along with check boxes for “Yes” and “No”, and hand them out to everyone. Each person would complete one of the polls, and return it to Prof. Huemer, who would then tally the results. His results would look something like this:

• It is wrong to cheat. Yes: 78% No: 22%
• It is wrong to have an abortion. Yes: 65% No: 35%
• It is wrong to be ungrateful. Yes: 43% No: 57%

From this, Prof. Huemer would conclude that cheating and abortion are wrong, and ungratefulness is fine. But let’s go back and look at the individual poll results for these topics:

• Person A: Yes - Yes - No
• Person B: Yes - No - No
• Person C: No - No - No
• Person D: Yes - No - Yes

Suddenly, the notions of a conscience and of a self-evident truth are cast into doubt. Some people agree with the majority on some topics, but disagree on others. And the longer the poll, the less likely that there will be anyone who lines up perfectly with the majority on every topic. So, virtually everyone must have a defective conscience, a faulty intuition, or some other mental process that interferes with and clouds the self-evident nature of moral truths. Why, then, should their opinions be trusted on those topics with which they align with the majority? To me, it “seems like” Prof. Huemer relies on a wholly unreliable source of moral guidance - this nebulous thing called a conscience.

Prof. Huemer’s majority intuitionism hints at predetermination - it’s as if all of our intuitions are psychically connected, so that despite our individually defective mental faculties, the majority of us end up being correct on a given question, so that the true moral intuition shines through every time. If Prof. Huemer intends to cling to the idea of a conscience - of ethical intuitionism - concurrently with the notion of majority ethical truth, it is this that he must show: what is the nature of the binding force that reveals this emergent moral code?

Undoubtedly, when confronted with this question, Prof. Huemer will back away from his claim of definite moral truth, and resort to mere probabilities - but probabilities of what? What ends does such probabilistic analysis serve? Does it merely allow you to get by in society, offending the least number of people? Is that the self-evident purpose of ethics?