I think you summed it up here quite well, but I do think this is sorta divulging a little into semantics because I'm having trouble separating what you consider "fast pro/con weighing" from "having an instinct", which may rely on some sort of moral fiber, but doesn't always have to. I've always agreed that morality is subjective, but I've never really looked into the "morals do not exist" perspective. Would you describe the "no morals" approach as sort of like a 'naturalist' or 'clean slate' way of thinking? As in, if you stripped all the influence of religion, society, culture, etc. from any average human, they would be more naturally inclined to your nihilist perspective? This discussion has definitely gotten me thinking more like the budding philosophy student I once was, so I'd just like to say thanks by the way.