I don't find any of these immoral, b/c there is no harm and I determine morality on the basis of actual harm caused to others.
I don't find most of these morally dumbfounding. The fundamental issue is that these researchers believe that morality is based on "harm". It isn't.
Most universal ethics are based on harm. List the things that 90% of humans would agree are immoral, and they'll likely all strongly related to causing harm to others.
1) Clearly wrong. You respect the ones you love, even after their death. If you owned a dog and didn't love it, then I would consider that morally wrong as well
Disrespect causes harm to the living. Respecting the dead is merely an extension of that harm principle, and the many who don't extend it to the dead, don't b/c they know it causes no harm.
2) This depends on exactly what "very busy" entails, but if this wasn't something extreme, and merely something like "too busy at work", then *clearly* it is morally wrong. It is wrong not to keep your promises, especially to your family.
A large % of humans would disagree that a promise to a dead person carries any moral obligation, precisely b/c they are dead and thus unharmed by the broken promise. Even those who had a problem with it would view it as much less unethical than breaking a promise to visit her in the retirement home, and that is precisely b/c that would cause emotional harm to the mother.
3) This isn't wrong at all. National symbols don't deserve reverence.
I agree, b/c symbols cannot be harmed, and any harm caused by people's attachment to symbols is self-inflicted. Note that if you said she tore it up in public some people would then find it wrong, precisely b/c then it would have a negative emotional impact on others.
4) Not wrong, although most would find it disgusting.
Agree that it isn't wrong, b/c no one is harmed. If they had sex, it becomes potentially wrong due to the harm of deformities on offspring. Or if one of them didn't consent or was too young to know what they were doing then it would be wrong, again b/c of harm caused.
5) Buying the chicken is already wrong. Having sex with it is probably the least of the wrong things here.
Sex with a dead things can't cause harm so not immoral, unless it's viewed as a kind of violating another person's property, which is partly why necrophilia is viewed as wrong. Also, like #1, it's much about how it might harm the still living loved one's of that person.
Buying a chicken is only wrong if you assume a being with rights not to harmed has been harmed.