[the phantom]

The question assumes that you do not know this person and don't know anything about them.

Well, in that case I suppose I'd put myself at approximately the same degree of risk for everyone.

... what about that "minority" that does derive contentment from immorality? What reason do they have to act morally?

They don't. That's why they act immorally.

That's what I was hoping to hear. I'm looking for a reason for everyone to behave morally. If a reason only causes most people to act morally and isn't good enough for some people then it doesn't totally answer the question 'Why be moral?'.

I accept that moral action may be based on seflish motives.

I find this interesting. It says that the motivation of the person is meaningless and that only the action matters.

Isn't selfishness immoral? But apparently not if the selfishness results in an act that benefits society. But what happens when that same individual, who has set a precedent for selfish actions, does yet another selfish action that instead harms society? His motivation, attitude, and character haven't changed, yet suddenly he's immoral where as he was moral before? I don't get it.

But associating individual pleasure with behaviour that furthers the species is a basic principle in ensuring the continued survival of that species.

This seems to indicate that moral behavior is merely evolved instinct. If it's just instinctual behavior, then how can we call it moral or immoral? If we're merely acting on ingrained biological tendencies, then we're basically just animals, and morality, free will, and choice have been negated.

And why should society matter to someone? Why should they try to help others at their expense?

The individual benefits from living within a scoiety. Therefore it is generally in the interests of the individual to act in the interests of society.

I notice that you said "generally". In other words, sometimes it's not in the interest of the individual to act in the interest of society (which is true). Why in those situations should they act morally?

That's why, to my mind, there has to be more to it than belief in a higher authority. Otherwise, why would those who do not believe in such an authority act, as the majority do, in a moral manner?

Here is the the focus of all of my questions. Why should those who do not believe in a higher being, state of being, or truth behave morally?

You've given some non-theological reasons for moral actions already but I've shown that there are exceptions to every single one of those reasons, so why would those who are exceptions act morally? When I asked this earlier you said this-

They don't. That's why they act immorally.

Are we to just accept that some people can't be expected to act morally?

I don't. I believe that everyone does have a say in the way they act, but that they must be given a good reason to act a certain way. And if those exceptions, like you said, don't have any earthly reason to act morally then they must be given a non earthly reason.

Some sort of religious belief is the only thing that would compel everyone, without exception, to behave morally.