That is, we simply think about the propositions, turning our intellects to them as honestly and critically as we can, and then sometimes we immediately grasp their truth. I claim that when I carry out this thought experiment, the wrongness of murder becomes evident to me. So too with other simple moral propositions. When I wonder whether racism is wrong, or whether Hitler was a bad man, when I apply my direct reason to the problem, the answer is all too clear. Now of course, it needn't be the case that ALL moral knowledge is direct.
Murder is wrong.
Hitler was responsible for many murders. Someone who deliberately commits many wrong acts is a bad person. Therefore, Hitler was a bad man. The point is that for the argument to even get of the ground, direct reason was necessary. It might be that direct reason supplies only a tiny number of valid moral principles, from which valid conclusions must be deduced.