What would be the harm?

[Angrboda]

Goals are by their very nature subjective.  Whether something has met the goal may be objective, but that does not make the goal itself objective.  You are measuring the wrong thing.

You must mean that consequentialists are measuring the wrong thing...but, ofc, that would be a sloppy claim.  Consequentialists could be measuring the success or failure of an act to meet an objective moral standard, or a state of affairs in accordance with the same.  I don't personally think that consequentialist ethics are enough, in and of themselves (a point I mentioned earlier)..mostly because they have to have something to measure those consequences by.

No, that's not what I mean. Goals are a product of intention, and only minds have intention, so goals are necessarily the product of minds, that makes them necessarily subjective.

(And yes, I know your objection about subjective awareness of objective things. That doesn't apply here because the intentions themselves are not a feature of the universe. Goals themselves do not exist out there. Feel free to show how one derives a goal from the properties of a rock.)