Your gut feeling will simply let you realize when something doesn't line up with your predefined societal, cultural, familial and personal beliefs. Relying on your gut as some universal ethical and moral thermometer is extremely flawed.
There have been plenty of people throughout history that had no problem subjugating other people for their own gain, and I do not believe they all knew at some level that it was wrong and chose to ignore it.
The point of both rational and passionate discussion is to change personal beliefs. If enough people are swayed, then changes in familial, cultural and societal beleif structures may follow.
In other words, many people may implicitly trust the government, and their gut feeling may be that all is well.
Your gut feeling will simply let you realize when something doesn't line up with your predefined societal, cultural, familial and personal beliefs.
You do realise that this is exactly what our ethical and moral systems are based on, right?
Ethics does not exist in a vacuum. It is a function of our societal, cultural, familial and personal beliefs.
Ultimately, no matter what rational argument you might make to yourself for (let's use an extreme example) killing an innocent person, taking their stuff, raping their daughters, hanging their sons, burning their village and drinking wine in their skull, you will feel that that's wrong, and you will avoid doing so if you can. Even if you were magically transported in some kind of viking environment where this is perfectly reasonable behaviour according to everyone around you, your moral compass, which comes from those beliefs that you have accrued and which largely define who you are, would (I hope) make you feel very bad about doing this, and it would take an enormous effort (or a deranged mind) to slip from the relatively civilised present into such an environment without any difficulty.
Certainly there are people whose moral compass is totally fucked. Sociopaths/psychopaths come to mind. However, I am operating from the assumption that I am not one of those people. I can prove that to myself through simple observation of my life.
There are certainly biases in the intuitive shortcut for ethics. As I pointed out before, it doesn't work well when the topic is very emotional (which I guess you could say surveillance can be for some). Also, as you rightly point out, it is not very adaptable to change. This merely means that when faced with a new situation, if you're not used to evolving your morals with the times, you need to make an extra effort to do so. By now, when faced with new things I tend to react first conservatively (I am but human), but then quickly by accepting that there are many good things in the world that I'm not aware of, and that difference or unfamiliarity are no reason to condemn.
Intuition is a really powerful tool. I strongly encourage you to test its uses and limits for yourself, and see how you can get this amazing tool to work for you, rather than ignoring it and relying purely on analytical thinking that can be explained to others.
We are saying very close to the same thing. I don't believe intuition should be ignored outright - it is indeed a very useful tool - but it should be used only as a clue to help you define your own thoughts and stance more clearly. The fact that something "feels wrong" is not a persuasive argument to change, but it should be a persuasive argument to yourself (and to others if they trust your opinion) that further thought and discussion may be needed, as something may be being overlooked.
Intuition used as a direct reason for action puts us in the realm of lynch mobs and herd mentality. It is indeed a powerful tool, and as such has great power over us. I think the best check we can put on it is the rational mind. If you can't come up with a rational reason why you feel a certain way, maybe it's in fact your intuition that needs to be put in check. That was really the reason for my response. I have an immediate negative reaction to appeals through emotion. That's not to say that what you are arguing for is wrong, just that I refuse to take a feeling like that as a persuasive argument, as surely with a little time a more coherent argument can be formed, and if not, then that's definitely reason for pause.
There have been plenty of people throughout history that had no problem subjugating other people for their own gain, and I do not believe they all knew at some level that it was wrong and chose to ignore it.
The point of both rational and passionate discussion is to change personal beliefs. If enough people are swayed, then changes in familial, cultural and societal beleif structures may follow.
In other words, many people may implicitly trust the government, and their gut feeling may be that all is well.