The line of reasoning you mention at the end of your post, firmly in support of large cardinals, was first argued forcefully in 

 - W. N. Reinhardt, “Remarks on reflection principles, large cardinals, and elementary embeddings,” Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, Vol 13, Part II, 1974, pp. 189-205 

and the ideas are further discussed, explained and basically supported in 

 - <cite authors="Penelope Maddy" mrnumber="947855" cite="_J. Symbolic Logic_ **53** (1988), no. 2, 481--511">_Penelope Maddy_, [**Believing the axioms. I**](http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2274520), _J. Symbolic Logic_ **53** (1988), no. 2, 481--511.</cite>

 - <cite authors="Penelope Maddy" mrnumber="960996" cite="_J. Symbolic Logic_ **53** (1988), no. 3, 736--764">_Penelope Maddy_, [**Believing the axioms. II**](http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2274569), _J. Symbolic Logic_ **53** (1988), no. 3, 736--764.</cite>

These articles have now a rather large literature of discussion and criticism in the philosophy of set theory. To get started, you might find further resources on the reading list of my recent course [NYU Philosophy of Set Theory](http://jdh.hamkins.org/philosophy-of-set-theory-fall-2011/). One can now find numerous articles arguing on any given side of each issue.