[anigbrowl]

I take your point, but not everyone learns the same lessons in childhood; furthermore, ethical analysis is not always so simple as it appears. You may intuitively know that one course is right while another is wrong, but lack the vocabulary to articulate why to someone else. Politicians and other social technologists profit from such conceptual illiteracy.

I've never taken an ethics course myself, but we discussed ethical problems extensively when I was in high school and I've read numerous books on the subject. It's taken me until middle age to be able to easily recognize and debunk unethical rhetorical strategies and philosophical positions, and I'm sure than in 10 and 20 years I'll bemoan my present lack of sophistication.

[IIIIIIIIIIII]

Whenever a police officer beats someone up of shoots an unarmed guy there quickly are the "they need more training" comments. Pretty much all of these stories including the one here is about basic decency, not about complex matters, and that is what I address. You can always invent some complex outlandish scenario, but this isn't what this is about right here.

[anigbrowl]

Phrases like 'basic decency' and 'human nature' are what people fall back on when they can't articulate why a particular ethical position is desirable. This makes you vulnerable in an argument, because when your terms are vague your opponent can project different meanings onto those phrases and you won't have a comeback. Intuition is an excellent guide for your own actions, but it's not by itself persuasive. You need to dig deeper and figure out what are the bases of 'basic decency.' Don't worry, it won't stop working for taking it apart and putting it back together again. Go back to Plato and look how Socrates keeps peeling back layer after layer of unstated assumptions to reveal the core truths.