 A more interesting reason why Moore did not hold that all moral knowledge results from direct intuition was that he denied that intuition is infallible. On his view, it can appear to one that a false moral proposition is self-evidently  true.[5]  Thus, according to Moore, it is possible for the moral propositions one intuits to conflict. One resolves any conflicts among the moral principles one intuits—e.g., regarding which sorts of things are good—by considerations of coherence, with some intuitions regarding what is and is not good being rejected precisely because of their conflicts with other intuitions. So while a priori intuition plays a large role for Moore, he did not hold that one attains moral knowledge exclusively by carefully focusing one’s attention on various moral propositions and then simply intuiting whether or not they are true.