A little bit of trouble about previous lessons

I would like to briefly address two points that have been raised in previous lessons.
A. In the last lesson, you brought up the parable of the sheep (1 Isaac) in which you tried to show that morality is not a matter of consequence nor is it an innate tendency in us. Morality is a voluntary response to a moral command that obliges us to act/not act.
After all, no one thinks a sheep is “better” than a “wolf.” I agree with the analogy, but I wanted to point out that usually when we say a sheep is not “better,” we mean that it is unaware of the consequences of its actions and does not intend to do good. It simply responds to its subconscious instincts.
There is room to say, (not necessarily, but not necessarily otherwise), that man’s advantage over animals is that he is aware of the act and its consequences, and that he aims in his moral behavior to benefit/not harm others, that he is compassionate, caring, and loving, and that this is the fundamental motive for his moral behavior. In this view, choice is not a necessary condition for determining a person’s character, perhaps on the contrary, the more his character is like this, the more inherently compelled he is to act like this, the more consistent he is with himself, the more his behavior expresses his personality.
In a fundamental argument that you made against radical empiricism, which claims that what cannot be proven, we cannot be certain that it is indeed true/correct. (I hope I phrased it correctly). You argued that this law in itself is sweeping, and therefore it also needs proof according to this principle, and since its truth cannot be proven, we have no way as faithful empiricists to say that what cannot be proven is not certain.
Here I am trying to answer that the empiricist principle is not a positive principle, and therefore it is exempt from certainty. That is, we can decide that it is not necessarily true and still accept it as a guiding principle, it is argued that this principle is uncertain but that no other idea that has not been proven is certain either. Where does that come from? I don’t know, but I also can’t know otherwise. And again we have reached the same place, we have no certainty about something that has not been proven. Lest you say, but I think that there are principles that do not need proof. Here we have left the logical world that allows us to examine such a claim, because the claim exempts itself from being put to any test. And if so, even without the principle of refutation (let’s say for the sake of the matter that it has not been proven either) I have no reason to accept it. Either I think so or I don’t.
In 2. How do I know that what my intuition perceives is true, since many intuitions (such as in places where people disagree with me and not only) are necessarily incorrect (assuming there is one truth) and if so, how do I know that my intuition is correct and not another, or none of them. Or in the words of W. James. We know for sure but we do not know that what we are certain of is indeed so. And this is not only a statement of principle, but also validated by the fact that we do observe incorrect intuitions (no matter their relative percentage).
Thank you and have a nice day.