When I say "no morals" exist, I mean that there isn't an objective "thing" morals. There's no rule or natural law that says "this is right and this is wrong". It's a human concept. If you look at just the physics behind it, what is "good"? You'd be arbitrarily applying "good" to things. Is gravity "good"? That's why I say my "morals" is just pro/cons. Of course, some people do get "morals" from other things (like religious books). But it baffles me as to why there is so much emotional baggage attached to it. I can only fathom it as pros/cons for that person. Attaching emotional weight to arbitrary events is weird. I don't understand the logistics of it.

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?

Well yes and no. I purely look at pros/cons. This is what most animals do naturally. Since it's the best way to survive. If the animal/organism chose something that didn't benefit it in some way, it'd obviously die out. And thus that particular favoring wouldn't be chosen to continue on in the lineage.

After millions of years of evolution, humans have come up with a general idea of whats "right". But really, it's just what's most beneficial to us. We keep people alive because nature has showed teamwork give you an advantage. In collecting food, in fighting, and in a bunch of other stuff. So we said "letting someone live and help is beneficial, thus it is 'good'".

So I'd say, yes. Looking at it objectively, if you stripped religion, society, and culture from the picture, you'd get early humans before those things evolved. Nature would choose the people who managed to "re-find" the best way to survive.

Society and general "good" behavior is so far deemed the best way of doing that. But if the best chance at survival was just to kill everything, then that'd be what our species did.

I guess the best way to think about it would be to try and imagine morals from a non-human perspective. Do bacteria decide that eating something (but not something else) "good"? No. It just is. That's how it lives. You can arbitrarily (or semi-logically, or even logically) define "good" and "bad" into categories and put each action into them, but you need a discrete definition.

And (I'm not philosophy major so I don't know how often this is done) people have started to do that. There's different "schools of morals" if you will. Perhaps one could be: what is "good" is anything that allows more computers to be made. While what is "bad" is anything that allows more humans to be made. As you can see, the definitions are pretty much arbitrary and pointless.

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.

Instincts are things the body does automatically with no conscious input. Touching a hot stove and instinctively removing your hand, for example. Or instinctively removing your hands/grip if you try to choke yourself (or hold your breath for too long).

"fast pro/con weighing" requires memories. No memories means you can't quickly weigh pros/cons (you have no memories of related things). Instincts don't require memories. They are biological functions.

So I wouldn't instinctively jump in front of a bullet for someone. My body wouldn't do that. Regardless, 99% of events allow at least a couple seconds of decision making.