Regarding the addition:

I don't really understand your insistence on radically simplifying the experience of making decisions and moral judgments. Obviously my 'utility function' doesn't work by releasing dopamine in magnitudes corresponding to the 'goodness' of my actions. When people say "WoW may be fun, but it has little lasting effect" they are not commenting on the duration of the increase of pleasurable neurotransmitters-- they mean complicated and confusing things like "WoW may be fun but I won't be proud of myself the way I would if I spent that time helping people" or "WoW may be fun but it won't give me self-respect" or "I'll feel better about myself accomplishing things in real life". No one thinks altruism feels like WoW but lasts longer-- it's an attempt to express what internally feels like a different sort of utility.

On occasion it is a distinction that leads people to say mysterious sounding spiritual things-- perhaps part of why some theists have trouble seeing how an atheist would act moral. And 'God' as a shared mental entity has often been something like an externalization of far-mode thinking that seems to, in some people, give them greater control over their near-self.

The main thing though, is that 'selfish pleasure' and 'moral rightness' feel different in my brain-- I suspect they be less distinct in some brains and more distinct in others. But treating them the same way for all people just gets the phenomenology of decision making wrong at least for a large class of humans.

Again, it's far self vs. near self and this post is exactly the confusion treating those selves as a unitary utility function creates.