Repeated this question as it is one I would appreciate an answer to as well.
Ethically, they can't both be true, since contradictions cannot exist. From a general epistemic standpoint, intuitions are attitudes and judgments, not propositions, and cannot be true or false.
(I1) Harming innocent people is wrong.....
Can you explain how that is an objective statement?
Because we know intuitively that harming innocent people is not fair or just, and we generally don't do it. In logical terms, innocent people are of value* and, since they are not threatening anything of value* (which is why we call them "innocent"), it would be wrong to harm them in turn.
Of course, much of the content of the judgment depends on the meaning of "innocent." For the sake of the discussion, I assume that "innocent" means "one whose existence or actions do not threaten or harm anyone of value*."
I'm just thinking - if a society, or an individual, genuinely believed that the sacrifice of an innocent was the only means to acheive a greater good for the society, then it would not be the case that harming an innocent was necessarily always wrong.
No, it would probably be the result of some ideological bias, esp. a religious one. All the examples of sacrifices of innocents for society's sake I can think of, like widow-burning, the Inquisition, slavery, hard labor, neo-liberalism, exist either because of religious or political dogma or both.
I think that is an example of where an "intuition" is itself a moral or value judgement based on.....something, and as such seems to me a rather circular idea of building a system of morals.
An intuition by definition is not based on anything. It is a priori knowledge. If it's not a priori, then it's not an intuition. If you find that a judgment itself relies on another judgment, then it may be derived from an intuition, but it is not itself an intuition.
Random thought: was Christ innocent? Assuming he was, would that not negate this argument for the non-existence of god, since the greater good was in fact served by the harming of an innocent? And that therefore "harming innocent people is wrong" is false? (At least in this particular circumstance?)
I don't believe Christ existed or that it would have been "good," so...
But yes, if you accept all the Christian make-believe premises, the argument must fail... but in Christian-world, there is no ethics anyway, so the fact that the argument would be false would be a trivial fact...