On Intuition as a Source of Ethics

Glenn Plastina

It is quite clear that man, as a moral being is created in the image of God. Kant made a good critique or “postulation” on the role of morality in relation to the existence of God. In fact, it is in the concept of God that ethics is made more meaningful. The question of God, for me, is not only a matter of his existence and nature, but also its implications on man’s morality. It is unthinkable for me to comprehend the essence of morality apart from the concept of God as the ground of morality.

Personally, the imago Dei is not only an abstract proposition, but a practical concept. Among the Quakers and mystics, the concept of the inner light is an important ethical basis. This is in the line with the belief that man is created in God’s image and has the capacity to think and be morally responsible to his actions. To some extent, it brought a new dimension in relation to ethical stance; people became more tolerant to other citizens since their ethics is based upon intuition. In this case, they are humane in their dealing with other people. Such is a positive view of man’s freedom: the capacity to do what is right.

But, is there such thing as pure ethical stance based upon intuition? How about the other non-Christian religious orientation? How about the goal of intuition? In my mind, however, these questions require answers. First, is the role of religious orientation. Religious orientation includes belief in the concept of God, world, and man, sacred or profane, and/or processes of divine revelation. While man has the capacity to think for himself in a given matter on a given situation, no one thinks and responds out of a vacuum. Even a mind has a context! Any ethical responses are, for me, products of a conviction guided by previous/past/present religious orientation.

In the primitive sense, we can hypothesize that personal intuition exists before religious orientation; it somehow contributed to the origin and development of religious orientation, but the interplay of religious orientation and ethics is inescapable. One more thing is the question of response and motivation. Reliance upon intuition opens diversity and uniqueness in matters of response to any given situation. Thus, it avoids nominal rigidity of rule, standards, and regulations, a destructive formula of legalism. That is positive. But somehow, it should be clarified that ethics is directly involved with motivations and practical applications.

There is a difference between basis of ethics and intuition also. Ethics may never be able to do away with intuition, but the primacy of the concept of God as basis for morality is, without a doubt, necessary. An intuition without a clear understanding of its grounds for ethics can be an aimless practical effort, a misfocused emphase. In the final analysis, I would like to address that ethics is in no position to make itself meaningful when the subject of intuition is deprived of the ground of such morality. The ethical practitioner and subject must also be careful to make his/her foundation of morality certain and solid. An intuitive claim for moral stance may be authoritative, but only for the claimer. As long as it is not logically established or grounded upon “revelation,” its ethical essence is indeterminable.

If possible, ethics should be theistic and humane. Striking the balance between spiritual and material, temporal and eternal, loving and justice are all important. If there can be no universal ethical standard, God-driven or humane-driven, at least love applied will do. But it should be remembered that a God-driven love is always at the edge than just mere act of sacrifice and blind obedience.