An interesting paper that commits the author to some substantial positions. The way the author defines morality depends on epiphenomenalism being false. If morality depends on freedom and freedom exists only as a subjective experience, epiphenomenalism would refute the very possibility of morality by rendering its basis causally inert.

I'd be interested to see his thoughts on Calvinists - committed liars, amoral zombies, or madmen? If people all feel subjectively free, they're either lying or people can be mistaken about what it is to feel free, raising issues for the author's own position.

A quality article - to the point, clear, and thought provoking.

Note: I'm not a committed epiphenomenalist, I just consider it a serious possibility.