"Nor even, 'Sorry, morality is mere preference, [...]"

"Nothing is 'mere.'" Clearly morality is not just like any other preference, like one's taste in music or ice cream. Indeed, morality is different enough that we really shouldn't use the word preference. We want to actually understand the mechanisms underlying our notions of moral argument, progress, error, &c. No doubt our discussions of moral issues would be much improved should we be armed with such an understanding.

Still, it seems to me that once you admit materialism, that "goals [...] need minds to be goals in," then that answers the fundamental, ontological, philosophical question. "Is anything really truly universally right, no matter what anyone thinks?" No.

The rest is "mere" cognitive science. I'm looking forward to tomorrow--the details of the proposed algorithm--but I'm not expecting any major surprise. Subhan has it essentially right.