Earlier quoted context omitted.
Moral systems based on clear and universalized principles are more intrinsically compelling than arbitrary preferences that are merely labeled "moral". If Slack employees said they felt is was unethical to serve chocolate over vanilla ice cream, none of us would pay attention.
Yes, but there is almost no way to fully follow through on clear and universal principles. Instead of worrying about that, consider the possibility that our moral feelings are generated by a natural receptivity most of us have to the suffering of others, and that even if these feelings to not appear consistent with a universal and logical philosophical schema, I think it's more appropriate to carefully listen to the…
My original comment was the opposite of an out-of-hand dismissal. I thought about what he was proposing, carried it to it's logical conclusion, and showed that it was flawed. I then invited him to propose a fix. No fix has been suggested.
> I think it's more appropriate to carefully listen to the compassionate concerns of others than to try and develop ways to ignore them.
Strong, unprincipled moral feelings come to every human since they are a small child. There is good evidence that these are very biased and lead to results that are immoral upon reflection. The world is awash in people announcing their unreflected moral feelings, and these point in contradictory directions. "Listen to this particular random person's feelings....but don't challenge their validity" is not useful advice.