They may be wrong objectively but how would anyone know that they are holding the wrong or right objective belief other than using their interpretation and intuition?
Discussion
I think you’re on to the right idea. Truth is what corresponds to reality. Anything else is fantasy. If God exists, then it makes sense that morality comes from him. Intuition may be accurate but it can also be corrupted. Therefore it is unreliable for determining truth.
If intuition was always accurate, everyone would be incredibly rich. But others intuition makes them make bad decisions a lot. For instance, no one would say that an addict’s intuition is correct.
Oh ok.
I agree that truth should correspond to reality.
I also agree that intuition can be flawed and unreliable, my point is just that that's how it seems we work for better or for worse.
Do you think it's possible to not include intuition from moral reasoning?
I think a concrete example could help before things start getting too abstract:
How would one objectively evaluate the moral truth of sacrificing an innocent life for another without using intuition?
I'm curious about your perspective.