What would be the harm?

[The Grand Nudger]

Except that it doesn't..since oxygen has value even to creatures that do not possess any such organ or mind

No, it doesn't, any more than the flow of electricity has value to a computer.  The computer doesn't give a shit if it is powered-up or not; it is OUR imposition of world view from which we derive a sense of function, and therefore of the goals of function, and therefore of the value of this or that state in serving those functional goals.  We desire to type out our philosophical ideas, rather than to look at a blank screen.

The computer may not be able to apprehend value, but electricity still has a value to a computer as a necessity of it's operation.  Conditional/universal.  In the same way, it may be a that a person is incapable of apprehending value, but that won;t mean that the thing being considered doesn't have it.

Imagine we had ourselves a time machine, and we grabbed some neolithic hunter gatherer and put him into a room.  In this room..there's a fire extinguisher.  We set the room on fire.  This person may very likely not realize that the fire extinguisher has immense and immediate value to them.  The reason that they don't realize that is because of a lack of information.   They don't know what a fire extinguisher is.

If, however, we explained what it was beforehand, they would possess that information..and we would expect that person to apprehend the value of the fire extinguisher when we set the room on fire.  To reach for it, and put out the fire.

This is all that's meant by "reaching the proper conclusion" in the context of objective values.

How do we know that someone is healthy?

We define health in terms of function.

How about this-- SHOULD someone be healthy?  If morality is to be based on hedonic state, does that mean I have a moral obligation to maximize my own well-being?  What if I feel guilty about something, and harming myself is an attempt to fulfill justice?

And what about justice in general?  Should I track down my daughter's rapist and murderer, tickle him gleefully for several minutes, and feed him cream puffs and caviar, since this will increase his sense of well-being?  Or should I light the fucking world on fire in my efforts to track him down, secure him in my basement, and tear strips of skin off him for a few years, just on general principle?   Cuz I gotta tell you. . . I'm pretty sure I know which path I would take.

All great questions...but unless we can agree on a set of instructive or informative metrics then no explanation or answer to any of those things will be productive between us.  

This mirrors the state of the neolithic man and the fire extinguisher, as well as moral subjectivity and objectivity. As far as the question above..personally...I'd high five you on your way to prison and set up some gofundme for your commissary card.

Harris, I think, would suggest that behavioral modification for the rapist would be the way to go..rather than retribution. It's something he's commented on before.
(i suppose you -could- tickle him and feed him cavier, not sure what the harm would be in that, but I'm also not sure why it stood opposite to retribution, so..meh?)