When issues arise which are firmly and forcibly implanted into universal human behaviour they are categorized as “moral issues”. Debates then arise: the seeming purpose of attempting to make cognitive and rational that which is intuitive. An example is the near universal ethic of protecting children. Attempts to frame and debate the issue within rational or intellectual parameters have failed. Quite simply, it is because it is. This is not debatable.
If one accepts that behaviour patterns, “universal” to humans lies beyond the realm of the cognitive and intellectual, then one must accept that all “morality” must lie in the realm of the intuitive.
Following from that one must accept that there is an unbridgeable gap between the intuitive and the cognitive. All attempts, therefore, by “grand academy” to intellectualise “morals” become futile, irrelevant and wastefully misplaced. Those that see themselves as the summit of intellect are displaying themselves as fools should they try to do so.
Since “ethics” and “morality” are seen as intertwined, then the entire concept of ethics must be removed from the (purported) intellectual domain and accepted as to lie in the intuitive, unreachable by academic debate or agonizing pondering.