There are some particular moral truths that I believe we have access to (such as the one not to inflict pain on a sentient being for no reason).

One way of submitting your moral intuitions in relation to some issue to cognitive therapy is to learn more about how people in other cultures think about it.

If two norms conflict, if they are mutually inconsistent, then at least one of them must be false.

It is of note that even if utilitarianism has proved to be superior to deontology and the libertarian moral rights theory in the area of killing, we are not allowed to say that it has been finally vindicated; it has to face other challenges in other areas, in particular in situations of distributive justice.

You should not take the content of your intuitive response as evidence until you have submitted your psychological reaction to what I call cognitive psychotherapy. You should do what you can to learn as much as possible about the origin of your reaction.

I am indeed a hedonistic utilitarian. I have defended hedonistic utilitarianism for quite a while.

According to deontology it is wrong to kill an innocent human being, period.