It is a general and primary principle of rationality, that we should not believe that which there is insufficient reason to believe, nor enforce upon our fellows a law which there is insufficient justification to enforce.

Is that a principle, or a tautology?

Nonetheless, I've always felt a bit nervous about demanding that people be able to explain things in words, because, while I happen to be pretty good at that, most people aren't.

I was thinking just yesterday that this is a problem in communications between men and women. Women know a lot of things that they can't explain. Here's a conversation you might overhear between a man and a woman:

She: "Look at that guy. He just doesn't see that she isn't into him."

He: "Huh?"

She: "Well, look at her. Look at how she looks at him. Look at how at how she's sitting."

He: "What about how she looks at him? How does she look at him?"

She: "Just look. It's obvious."

He thinks that She doesn't know what she's talking about, because She can't explain it. But somehow it often turns out that She is right.

So if A says that event B is inherently wrong and awful, and C disagrees on the grounds that it just doesn't seem all that awful to them, then the burden of argument needs to lie on A before any social, legal, public action is brought into play.

Is that the main point of your post, or was there something more? I'm looking at your 4 bullet points, and I agree with them, but they aren't novel or even controversial.