Studies of normal people tend towards either the biological
That's the idea, isn't it?

or the better accessed through the humanities or the wrong.
You keep saying that, alright. On what criteria and by what authority?

feelings of others and their experiences
Alright, so you're sure about that. You're big on the phenomenological aspect of philosophy. What if cognitive science demonstrates that experience as we understand/define it does not exist?

sensation and perception
That's what you're about.

Most important knowledge has its root in personal experience. The reason people misjudge other cultures is mainly from a lack of personal experience living in that culture. "walk a mile in their shoes" as they say.
Again, factual knowledge takes a backseat to personal experience. Wouldn't one of the applications of what we discussed earlier be input of information, ergo experience? How about that?

Let's take lying....
A lie is just an untruth, nothing more. Whether or not it is deliberate or not, misinformed or not, doesn't matter. The actual thorny problem concerns the nature of truth.

Now what does a rational, logical, consistent moral basis for examining lies look like?
Uh. Look, you can't get around it: your approach is internally perfectly consistent and rational. Just accept it and move on.

The moral rule "lying is wrong" we know is dumb because we have a range of reactions that goes from sympathetic to apathetic to disgusted to furious.
Perhaps, if something is wrong, it's just wrong no matter what.

And I haven't even gone into honesty as a virtue.
The ancients lapped that stuff up.

These are often distinct from our natural judgments
I don't recognize that a judgment can be unnatural.

and rely so little on consciousness but instead on emotional reactions
There isn't such a clear distinction. Do you describe individuals as either right-brained or left-brained? Just go with "spontaneous" vs. "considered".

A
nything logical or rational would have to rely on something close to "lying is always wrong" or "lying is wrong if it causes harm" or something.
Why? I don't see it. Using logic to reach a moral conclusion, anyway, is a bit like cheating. It requires that one make an implicit or explicit assumption for every deductive step but the last or penultimate. Given that, there are many ways to reach a "logical" moral conclusion. Any number, really. Of course, it isn't really proper logic but that doesn't stop many.

That's why moral philosophy that focuses on rules, rationality, logic, etc are generally useless. It's very personal, situational, social, and instinctive.
It's a contradiction, really. You have a rule.

Can you answer those questions scientifically, rationally? I don't think so.
My beef is not your views on science vis-a-vis morality, but the humanities and the human condition. I tried to explain how natural science could be highly successful in unraveling the questions that the humanities have been asking for a while, as well as requiring new ones to be posed. Only someone with a criminal hand could contest it.

I'm not sure I can really answer them. I guess I would say keep a high standard for yourself (but not so high that it's just a matter of pride) and have a "short memory" (as they say in sports), and be accepting of others.
So, principles - and generic ones, to boot. Well, I lol myself prefer the lol harm principle and the pleasure principle and the... IMO TTFL. I didn't expect something so silly...