I don’t think I’ve talked about a single preference-oriented morality. The only thing I’ve said is that if you desire something, or have a preference for something, then in the absence of any reason to think that thing is bad for you (cough objectively), then that’s a reason to get the thing. As a matter of fact, (objective fact, btw), I think that getting none of what you want is objectively bad for a creature (autonomous, independent, free) such as us.
Please. You can’t just say something (e.g., morality is subjective), give no reason to agree with you, and then demand someone else prove you wrong. That’s not how debating works. If you give no reason to agree with you, then people have no reason to agree with you. And I wrote a fucking ton of arguments for thinking that morality is objective… and you just get amnesia and pretend like they don’t exist. It’s insulting.
You are a physiological creature with certain basic needs, wants and desires that you share with everyone else, because they are grounded in the kind of creature that you are. And you can be wrong about what matters----the same as you can be wrong about thinking you don’t need a liver. You can have preferences and desires that make things go worse for you----and if you think that’s all there is to morality, then you’re committed to saying that someone ought to do what is worse for him. And that’s incoherent. It’s as incoherent as when you said “pain is good for no other reason than its painfulness” …which, btw, is just another thing you don’t feel the need to respond to.
I think I’m about done schooling you.