Makes sense. The issue I see there is that too many students (and professors, sometimes) will mistake intuitive or unintuitive results for acceptable evidence that the theory is sound or unsound, and that's false. Untutored moral sentiments are notoriously unreliable and often outright mutually incompatible, so going with whichever theory "fits my intuitions" stands in the way of me ever admitting that my intuitions about this could be wrong.
Contrariwise, if I start by working out to the best of my ability which moral theory is true, then I more easily can chase through all its resulting edicts about various actions' rightness or wrongness and start modifying my moral behavior to bring it in keeping with the theory I think is true.
I much prefer the latter on the grounds that my sentiments lie to me much more often than Reason does.