system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
If we judge our moral theories by our ethical intuitions, then what's the point of our moral theories? Why not just jump straight to our ethical intuitions?

I was thinking about the role of intuitions in our evaluations of moral theories. Here are two common classroom examples:

1. **Kantian deontology** requires that we not lie to the axe murderer at the door. *But we ought not tell the truth to the axe murderer*. Therefore, deontology is false/needs to be revised.

2. **Utilitarianism** requires that if an innocent person wanders into a hospital and we can harvest their organs to save five other people who would otherwise die, then we ought to harvest their organs. But this is an absurd consequence because *it's impermissible to just kill someone like that*. Therefore, utilitarianism is false/ought to be revised.

**Formally:** In each of these cases, we're showing that some moral theory M entails some obligation P. But P is false (i.e., ~P is  true). Therefore, ~M.

**Not begging the question:** We hold that "P is false" (or ~P is true) on the basis of our ethical intuitions. (If we weren't using our ethical intuitions to justify ~P, then we'd just be begging the question against the moral theory.)

**Ethical intuitions:** But if we allow ourselves to justifiably say that ~P on the basis of our intuitions, then what's the point of having a moral theory (if our moral theories will always just be revised to align with our intuitions)? Why not just intuit all of morality?

If ethical intuitions are admissible, then *what is the value of a moral theory*? And shouldn't we just skip right to our intuitions and just be ethical intuitionists?

Thanks.
gpt
You've been given lots of good, long answers, so here's a one sentence version: our intuitions often conflict with each other, so theorizing can help us get clear about where the bulk of our intuitions are actually pointing.