Only Sam Harris can answer such profundities.

Instead of talking about objective morality you need to be talkinf about internally consistent morality.

Not necessarily.

You can easily construct an internally consistent morality to justify just about anything. It needs some connection to the popular consensus and culture cause that's the easiest constraint to ground this discussion in terms of moral arguments that are actually viable in the society in which we live. Arguably, the Nazis had a fairly internally consistent moral framework.

Pretty sure Sam Harris handwaved Kant away in his arguments. He basically rephrases consequentialism but stresses that it's also extra based on science.

I still listen to his podcast and I do enjoy them but there’s something very idiosyncratic about how he thinks. He often goes on about how everything is just luck of the draw and if you understand that you could be a master of compassion like he obviously considers himself. Then he’ll go into a diatribe about how people should simply follow orders when they’re being arrested like he’s completely oblivious to the fact that an arrest is absolutely financially devastating for most of the people you see being arrested on youtube. Or he’s wildly perplexed at how anyone could defend looting or arson. I’m not saying he’s just expressing his opposition to these things but it’s that he’s seemingly entirely incapable of seeing it from the perspective of someone who’s just ****ing furious because they’ve been poor and disenfranchised their entire life. Even like Tucker Carlson has some awareness of how the other side thinks even if he thinks it’s stupid and abhorrent he’s not entirely oblivious to that which he disagrees. But Sam Harris thinks he’s deeply empathetic, or at least compassionate, but in fact he’s completely isolated in an intellectual bubble of extreme privilege. And again I’m not calling him out on being privileged or even enjoying it but the contrast between what he thinks he can see and what he actually sees is something to behold.

to be fair I don't think that was the argument, if you're referring to the chomsky exchange

It was that intent matters, because it's a good predictor of further behavior in the future, which ultimately is a consequentialist argument in favor of weighing in intent as a relevant variable.

That’s a more succinct way of saying it.

He grew up super rich with a famous television producer for a mother and it shows. Mom and Pop scholarship to Stanford with lots of international travel thrown in.