I'm fairly certain he identifies as a philosopher above all else. Heard him say the only reason he went into neuroscience was because he grew tired of constantly awaiting results from neuroscience as a philosopher.

I somewhat agree about them being an easy target, but they are a dominant target. And some of them are very good at using language in a way that circumvents logic. Harris was always great at handling that.

I think it's not difficult, it's just not ideal. Whatever logical foundation you find for morality, it will reduce morality to "only" logic. E.g. morality stemming from evolution as it benefited a society as a whole, means racism is bad only because it makes our society more likely to survive (the fact that survival is "good" is again pure logic). I think most people want racism being bad to be something more, like a universal truth.

I think morals were so beneficial to us as a society, we were made to hold them in a regard higher than that of logic.

For me that's very frustrating, but I think the question is how illogical do we let ourselves to be.