Kepler did not do his own “experiments” either. All he did was secondary data analysis. I’m not sure that is precisely the problem. Rather, it appears that he is puffing is credentials substantially. This work is more psychology than neuroscience. Moreover, there are several signs that it was obtained for polemic reasons. Most of my colleagues would grant that he has a PhD, but would not consider him a “scientist.” As you point out, his study is very dubious too. It appears to have a polemic goal, and to be poorly reasoned.
Setting aside his credentials, which are dubious, his argument is poor. This shouldn’t surprise us. Isn’t it well known he is a polemicist, not a scientist? Isn’t he one of the self-proclaimed “Four Horsemen” of the Apocalypse?
This is neither science, nor is a complete view of morality. Utilitarianism is not a coherent ethical principle, and has even justified great evil. For example, eugenics was justified with a flawless utilitarian argument.