One major problem I have with a lot of arguments is that at least one premise relies on intuition to be justified. The problem is that intuition is terribly unreliable and therefore cannot be used to justify a premise. Arguments that rely on intuition seem common in normative ethics from my what I have seem (The utility monster is one such example). I decided to make a thought experiment to tell if the argument relies on intuition that goes like this:
You are alien which is born with the intuition that utilitarianism and is self-evident
You discover a planet and decide to go visit it to find people living on it. you ask a person about utilitarianism and the person think it is false and use the utility monster argument to back up that assertion. Would you think this argument is sound or even makes only sense or a actual problem with the position you think is self-evident?
Utilitarianism can be changed to whatever the position be attacked is and the utility monster into the argument against said position. My question is this thought experiment a good one for filtering out Intuition based arguments or does it exclude arguments that are sound and valid? Is any exceptions that are based on intuition and yet are sound and valid?