Assuming that the fact that a moral requirement is grasped intuitively rather than through a controlled reasoning process does not by itself warrant the rejection of a moral requirement
just saying that moral requirements are determined solely by your intuitive processing system with no impact from your explicit reasoning does not mean you can reject the requirement.
there can be requirements with such value, and that they are apprehended intuitively; these could include the “commands of love”
rrational, because their value does not depend upon being reasoned at all.
these experiences of moral dilemma cannot be classified as irrational as they dont need to be reasoned. They are therefore, as the author classifies, arational whereby they diverge from rational judgement but are also not irrational.
countenance
to tolerate, accept or allow something often reluctantly
Those who deny the possibility of moral dilemmas or of unavoidable moral failure may acknowledge that people have experiences of being impossibly required, but then dismiss these people’s experiences as irrational, implying that whatever is not rational, and that might even produce judgments that stand in opposition to reasoned judgments, is rightly dismissed.
Those that believe that true moral dilemmas (where no ‘right’ answer exists) that cannot be avoided are valid (acknowledged). They acknowledge that individuals might feel like they cannot get it right (impossibly required), however they dismiss this as invalid and irrational. In their mind, anything that is not rightly rational can therefore be dismissed. o Suggesting that this group of individuals only hold reasoned judgements as rational and the only foundation for decision making. o Suggests that these people view moral dilemmas as emotional/ misguided perceptions rather than objective results