A study of characterisation in the novels of George Eliot

119.
gloss on this difference of opinion between George Eliot and Cara Bray.
He describes intuitionism as "an epistemological theory concerning the
nature of moral judgements" in that it states that "although ethical
generalisations are not true by definition, those of them which are
true can be seen to be true by any person with the necessary insight. II
As .to.the problem of disagreement there is "no reason why an intuitionist
should not admit irresoluble differenoes of opinion on moral matters,
provided he says that when there is such a differonce, one of the
parties believes he is intuitine when he is not." 80 This does not entirely
remove the problem of relativism but partially resolves it by
suggesting that given the "necessary insight II all differences can be
settled. George Eliot and Cara Bray might state with equal sincerity that
their intuitions were correct, but it might require a person agreed by
them both to have the "necessary insight" to arbitrate between them.
T~is
would seem to require an ideal, Utopian state, unlikely, George
Eliot thinks, to occur, if her wry comment concerning the judge who
presided over Felix Holt's trial is representative. '~ven the bare
discernment of facts," she tells us, "much more their arrangement with
a view to inferences, must carry a bias: human impartiality, whether
judicial or not, can hardly escape being more or less loaded. It was not
that the judge had severe intentions; it was only that he saw with
severi ty." 81
The evidence suggests that George Eliot can be described as an intuitionist
but with the following qualification. The "necessary insight"
is rare and hardly won; moral facts oan be discerned as directly as
empirical facts but not until the person seeing has been purged of
egoism. Such insight is the outcome and the reward of moral growth.
Morally elevated characters such as Dinah Morris, Dorothea Brooke, and
Daniel Deronda approach the state of moral awareness where they no