It seems to me that to a large extent impressions can be framed in terms of vague predictive statements with no explicit probabilistic or causal content, influenced much more by external factors than reasoned beliefs.
“He seemed nice” corresponds to “X% chance that if I met him more often, we would continue getting along well”.
“That sounds crazy” corresponds to “I can’t really tell you why but I find that rather improbable”.
If I am right about this, the first and main step would be lto earn how to turn impressions into explicit probabilistic statements which are easy to test. Keeping track of their status should not be any different from anything else then.
Yes, in consequentialism you try to figure out what values you should have, and your attempts at doing better might lead you down the Moral Landscape rather than up toward a local maximum.
But what are the alternatives? In deontology you try to follow a bunch of rules in the hope that they will keep you where you are on the landscape, trying to halt progress. Is this really preferable?
It seems to me that any moral agent should have this ability.