Moral intuition entails the morals that individuals hold independently in their belief of what is right or wrong within society. One of the most significant challenges raised by Sinnot-Armstrong toward moral intuition is that it is difficult to bring out the best out of someone because of the belief that morals affect the self-interest individuals hence affecting their ultimate decision in their lives. Therefore, it is crucial to defend moral institutions against this challenge posed by Sinnot-Armstrong.
The defence of the moral institutions lies in the fact morals guide one’s life and cannot affect his/her self-interest. Morals give one the understanding of what is right or wrong in society hence helping individuals make the right decisions depending on what they intend to achieve out of their actions. Sinnott-Armstrong (2005) challenge that morals affect the self-interest of individuals tends to negate the excellent role that morals play in enhancing the society.
It is significant to note that moral intuitions give one the opportunity to act in the best manner possible without self-doubt as one acts within the set principles of the society depending on what is acceptable. Wilson (2000) opines that acting in a given manner does not imply that the morals of an individual have affected their self-interest. Thus, it is crucial to defend moral institutions in line with the belief that morals shape up the society and the actions of individuals by giving them the best mode of operation. They do not affect the self-interest of individuals as everyone gets the opportunity to understand what is right and wrong. Again, one is able to choose actions depending on what the society feels is acceptable.
Therefore, the challenge by Sinnot-Armstrong that morals affect the self-interest calls for the defense of moral intuition. Morality is a leading element that has no effect on self-interest among individuals.