A few examples would be illustrative. It's unclear how immutable beliefs about moral judgements are a good thing. That seems like the basis of prejudice, for example.
It’s a tool. Like any tool, you can use it for good or for evil.
If you mix in the obligation to make an important moral decision, especially one that sacrifices evolutionary benefit for abstract social benefit like "I will not engage in a violent reaction when I feel offended" or "I will not copulate with this apparently willing and attractive potential sexual partner", well, we could say that it's likely that /usr/bin/moral_override will time out and your body will default to the path of least resistance for itself in that moment.
Thus, rehearsing for good outcomes in high-pressure situations is like tuning a configuration file to ensure reasonable behavior in known potential failure modes. You can hope that you won't hit the failure modes described (or you can plan ahead, knowing you eventually will, which is the better option), but you want to make sure that your system will behave appropriately when those modes are encountered. Leaving the behavior undefined or trusting the defaults is too risky for anything important.
It seems to me that by explicitly writing down the decision tree and reflecting on it, you could attempt to identify whether or not there were prejudices baked into it.
As a contrived example based on the article and comments: should the fact that the patient is a 6-year-old girl vs. an overdosing opiate addict make any difference on whether or not the conditions you're flying in are safe? Or should it be based on visibility thresholds etc.