Is that really the issue though? What about choosing between competing goals, and rewards?
We will have emotional responses, because we are emotional creatures - emotions for us are linked to how we prioritise what to remember, and contextual recall. We may have had an aversion to a choice, then done mental work to identify as correct by some moral criteria, and then feel good about the action because we are doing the right thing. That just tells us about how we use emotions towards guiding behaviour and shaping intentions, nothing about why we make certain behaviours our moral goals.
Heroin or crack cocaine are considered very pleasurable. Even so, it's estimated only 15% of hard drug users experience addiction issues (5% of alcohol users). Hedonic treadmills simply are not enough to explain behaviour. Consider the results of Rat Park, that seem to show compulsive and impulsive behaviour is linked to lack of social connections and boredom.
It is unfashionable now to talk about wisdom, but it's exactly the right term for looking at the quality of our decision making, and in Philosophical framework for avoiding short-term strategies I make the case wisdom is the skill of solving dilemmas, in relation to the integrated centre of our concerns, in this answer: Wisdom and John Vervaeke's awakening from the meaning crises? Addiction, compulsion, coercion by our desires and shirt term aims, are problems exactly because they conflict with other values or timeframes of aims. We can work on personal development, including through philosophy, to make better decisions, in relation to increased self-knowledge.
Food and sex are absolute requirements for the persistence and replication of the medium for memes and meme-complexes, human minds and culture. As Hume observed we don't reason to our core values, we reason from them (including managing conflicts); we can't get a sense of what we Ought purely from what Is. I would argue that Moral Foundations theory is helping give a picture of the necessary values for us to cooperate, with a slightly different set for people who feel more under threat (linked to prioritising the Purity and In-group foundations associated with more right-wing politics). We receive impulses towards these values, towards feeling they are rewarding, as part of our evolved social natures. Another way to think about this is Christakis' 'Social Suite'.
Sports are cultural forms to manage competitiveness and status-seeking, into greater cooperation. The Ancient Olympic Games and their religious truce helped the Athenians and Spartans cooperate against the Persians, even while still competing for regional influence and hegemony (I would argue Sparta won militarily, but Athens won on soft-power and cultural legacy). The increase in violent crime with greater social inequality has been linked to decreased opportunities to seek status, heightening small interactions between strangers. Sports and culture, more generally, allow a wider range of behaviours and the harnessing of the selfishness of our genes towards replication, towards social aims. So we don't just do sports because they feel good, but also because they are part of successful societies, thy cooperate better, and ensure the spread of their values.
An idea that can help us understand moral behaviour not simply as values and impulses, but as a mode of reasoning, is intersubjectivity - 'if I were you' and 'if you were me'. This gives rise to what has been identified as the most describes universal moral principle, The Golden Rule, usually expressed as 'do unto others as you would be done by'. Discussed in relation to moral frameworks like Kant's Categorical Imperative, & Rawl's theory of justice here: Is the Categorical Imperative Simply Bad Math? :)
Intersubjectivity also helps ground our understanding of meaning and communication in general: According to the major theories of concepts, where do meanings come from? Which can help us to understand how we generated the mode of narration that we call causality, which we use to draw inferences from experience: Is the idea of a causal chain physical (or even scientific)?