Arguing from Repugnance : Episodes in the Logical Manipulation of Shared Intuition
M. Duchin
Abstract:The eighteenth-century monk-mathematician Girolamo Saccheri and the modern-day bioethicist Leon Kass both appeal to “repugnance” to persuade readers against accepting a controversial principle. Here, repugnance should be understood to be a kind of shared intuition, or nearly-universal strong belief. The results for Saccheri were demonstrably wrong, and Kass, like many contemporary philosophers, must be left to contend with some of the undesirable properties of this sort of intuition. I will show by appealing to mathematical examples that shared intuition is highly imperfect, highlighting its failure to transfer between logically equivalent statements. Without a clear argument differentiating mathematical epistemology from moral and metaphysical ways of knowing, some of the frequent uses of shared intuition in analytic philosophy are undermined. I present several examples of affected arguments, spanning topics from personal identity to meat-eating to human cloning. Introduction Analytic philosophy uses intuition so centrally and intimately that in fact the whole of the field can be defined as “the effort to attain maximum clarity regarding the content and basis of our intuitions” (Rethinking 8). I will focus on a special kind of intuition in this paper: intuitive knowledge of truth or falsity, and intuitive moral judgments. Philosophers often appeal to shared intuition as a mechanism for making judgments. An assertion to be evaluated is intricately argued to have a specific logical relationship to a second assertion; then a strong and nearly universal intuition affirming or rejecting the second assertion is invoked. Frequently, for instance, the author will 1 Because of this focus, I will not need to touch on the psychological and phenomenological literature on physical and sensory intuition. Duchin – Intuition NEW SCHOOL CONF. 1 argue that a principle has a collection of logical consequences which are intuitively unattractive, undermining the desirability of the original principle. The usefulness of this process hinges on the presumption that the benefits of intuition transfer across logical implication. Prominent examples of this reasoning occur across philosophical subfields. When we are dissatisfied with the results of this procedure, we are inclined to critique the logical relationship of the statements, rather than the reliance on intuition as a guide. Many critiques can be (and have been) leveled at the reliance on intuition to discover facts or morality; various authors have cast doubt on its universality and have shown that it is heavily culturally determined. I will raise a more logistical objection without giving up the right to these critiques. My main argument will be that even if shared intuition were stable and independent of culture and historical moment, it would still have a problematic transfer across the operations of logic. Gary Gutting defines intuitions as “simply the rock-bottom beliefs [philosophers] find themselves forced to take as basic in their search for philosophical truth,” and indeed recognizes “the fact that we have no alternative to beginning with our own de facto intuitions, even though they have no certification beyond our inability to get past them” (Rethinking 6-7). Beyond the lack of positive certification, intuition has other demonstrable problems. I will take it as so obvious as not to need demonstration that personal intuitions can be wrong and misleading. It takes more work, though perhaps not a great deal more, to show that strongly and widely held intuitions can be wrong and misleading as well. In fact, I will show something stronger: that intuition is not invariant under logical equivalence. In other words, two statements can be exhibited which are rigorously Duchin – Intuition NEW SCHOOL CONF. 2 logically equivalent and such that strong intuitive belief held by virtually all people will hold one to be right, the other wrong. This shows as a corollary that intuition affirming one statement does not in general bolster its consequences; at the same time, intuition undermining the implications of a premise need not tarnish the premise. To accomplish this, I will take examples from mathematics, where the logical interdependence of statements can be studied with much greater rigor than in other forms of philosophy. Following that, I will look to examples in metaphysics, ethics, and bioethics to examine the consequences of my observations. Mathematics and the intuitiveness of axioms Euclid, the ancient Greek axiomatizer of geometry, laid down five basic postulates which he took to be self-evidently true—that is, five founding principles which were concordant with his geometric intuition. 1. A straight line segment can be drawn joining any two points. 2. Any straight line segment can be extended indefinitely in a straight line. 3. Given any straight line segment, a circle can be drawn having the segment as radius and one endpoint as center. 4. All right angles are congruent. 2 Of course, the notion of agreement of “virtually all people” must be defined and defended. I will speak more about universality of intuition below, but I think that the standard of universality of intuitions met by my mathematical statements is at least as high as that used by the scholars whose work I describe (Parfit, Norcross, and Kass). Duchin – Intuition NEW SCHOOL CONF. 3 5. Given any straight line and a point not on it, there exists one and only one straight line which passes through that point and never intersects the first line, no matter how far they are extended. Several assumptions, in fact, are embedded in this axiom system. It is immediate to see that the fifth postulate does not hold in (usual three-dimensional) space, because for a fixed line and a point not on it, there are an infinity of choices meeting the requirement. So the two-dimensionality of the geometry at hand is built in to the famous Fifth. As it turns out, more is built in. Discoveries in the nineteenth century would show that the Fifth presumes that the ambient geometry is flat as well, while the other postulates are neutral with respect to curvature. On the way to the eventual embrace of alternate geometries (alternatives, that is, to Euclid’s flat plane), the Fifth was the subject of much debate. Euclid himself seems to have been dissatisfied with the idea that it could not be stated to sound as simple and natural as the others; in fact, he avoided employing the parallel postulate in the first twenty-eight proofs in his Elements and only came to it when he perceived it unavoidable. He probably believed, and in subsequent Greek mathematics it was widely believed, that the Fifth could be proved from the others, meaning that it was redundant and could be removed in the name of elegance. 3 In fact, this version of the Fifth is not the original one, but a restatement called Playfair’s postulate or the parallel postulate which is more easily parsed. Hugely many alternate restatements are possible, but this is the most frequent and classical. (Another, perhaps even more appealing to intuition, holds that a curve which is equidistant from a straight line must itself be a straight line. Yet another version says that every triangle has internal angles which add to 180 degrees.) 4 This requires that the notion of a “straight line” be replaced with the more general idea of a geodesic. Then the first four postulates make sense in model spaces of arbitrary curvature. Duchin – Intuition NEW SCHOOL CONF. 4 Euclid and his contemporaries never succeeded in establishing the logical relationship of the Fifth postulate to the first four. After apparently lying idle for hundreds of years, Greek geometry enjoyed a major rebirth of interest in the Arab world, where scholars resumed efforts to “prove” the parallel postulate in the ninth through thirteenth centuries (Studies 31-42). Later, a Jesuit priest named Girolamo Saccheri (1667-1733) devoted the bulk of his career to the same task, that of completing Euclid’s project and showing that the Fifth follows from the acceptable four. I will focus attention on the well-known story of Saccheri’s attempts, although he may have been anticipated by Arab mathematicians of several centuries earlier. Saccheri employed the method of proof by contradiction: he assumed the first four postulates and the negation of the Fifth, then endeavored to find a logical contradiction. Had he found one, this would indeed have shown that the first four suffice to prove the Fifth. No contradiction, strictly speaking, emerged, though he did discover a number of statements which seemed impossible—he found, for instance, that rectangles could not exist in his axiom system. Desperately, though he surely realized that his project had failed in its goals, he declared his findings (like the nonexistence of rectangles) to be “repugnant to the nature of the straight line,” a bad enough sin when no contradiction is to be found. His subsequent book bore the trumpeting title Euclid Freed of Every Flaw (Euclides ab omni naevo vindicatus). 5 The axiom system obtained by assuming that a fixed line has no parallels through a fixed point is modeled by a sphere, where the role of lines is played by great circles (circles as large as the equator). No two lines are parallel on the sphere because any two great circles must intersect (in an antipodal pair of points, in fact). There are no figures on a sphere whose edges are arcs of great circles and which have four right angles—that is, there are no rectangles—as Saccheri found. If, instead, the existence of several parallels is taken as an axiom, the model space is called hyperbolic instead of spherical, and again there are no geodesic rectangles. Note too that spherical geometry has triangles whose angles must sum to more than 180 degrees, while hyperbolic triangles always contain less than 180 degrees. From this characterization, the nonexistence of rectangles follows easily (because a