> I believe I already answered that in >>90

Sorry, I don't quite see it. Could you summarize? I'll summarize what I preceive to be your argument, and my problem with it:

1. You say that morals are arbitary, in the sense that they have no higher justification and are merely adaptations for group behaviour.
2. You say that you live to maximize your own happiness.
3. You say you only follow morals as defined in point 1 because your instincts tell you to, and not for any higher reason.

I'd argue that your intellect is a far better guide than your insticts, but you seem to defer to instincts and entirely dismiss even attempting to override them by the use of intellect. I can't really say this way of living your life appeals to me.

> I do not believe I can remove my capacity for guilt any more than I can remove my capacity for fear or my capacity for sexual desire.

Many, many people have done either of those. So once again, it seems to me that you are living your life based on the assumption that you are too weak of will to do anything better for yourself.