Has Anyone Ever Been a Non-Intuitionist?

This paper considers the merits of an important argument of Prichard’s against Sidgwick’s claim that nobody has ever been an intuitionist. Prichard tries to turn the tables on that argument, arguing that nobody has ever been a non-intuitionist. This paper tries to adjudicate. One of the hinge points is the question in the philosophy of action where the distinction between an action and its consequences is supposed to lie. If enough of the consequences are sucked up into the action by understanding the latter as the action of causing those consequences, the structure of the debate changes. The discussion generates a much better understanding of ethical intuitionism and of the distinction between intuitionism and consequentialism.