A lot of that does make sense and I understand the 'lack of morals' and weighing the pros and cons, but it still seems so un-human-like to me because it just sounds so emotionless and static. Would you ever say you act upon instinct when faced with a 'moral decision'? Perhaps you subconsciously and quickly "weigh the pros and cons" in your head because you don't have much time to physically act. Would you consider that acting upon moral instinct? Or just physical instinct? Let's say you kill Mr. X in self-defense. You didn't have any time to think about it, you just did it. You didn't have time to weigh the pros and cons of killing him and there is one pro that stands out: you get to live. Surely that action is like a "default action" in given any situation in where you're about to be murdered. And would that "default action" be the same as a "moral code"?