The moral statement "Violence is morally wrong" is interpreted differently by Intuitionists, Realists, and Relativists because each school of ethics has a distinct understanding of the nature, source, and validity of moral judgments. Intuitionism holds that moral truths are self-evident and are directly known through moral intuition. According to intuitionists such as G.E. Moore, H.A. Prichard, and W.D. Ross, human beings possess an immediate moral awareness that enables them to distinguish right from wrong without relying solely on reason, experience, or consequences. In the case of the statement "Violence is morally wrong," an intuitionist would argue that the wrongness of violence is recognized directly by one's moral conscience. It is not derived from empirical evidence or social customs but is grasped as a self-evident moral truth. However, intuitionists also acknowledge that moral duties may sometimes conflict. W.D. Ross, for example, proposed the concept of prima facie duties, according to which violence may exceptionally be justified in situations such as self-defense or protecting innocent lives. Thus, while violence is generally perceived as morally wrong through intuition, exceptional circumstances require careful moral judgment. Moral Realism maintains that moral statements express objective facts that exist independently of personal beliefs, emotions, or cultural practices. Realists believe