(Debatable opinions in bold)
"Morality is only made apparent when it conflicts with your choices. When reason tells you to do one thing, and morality says another, you are expected to do the moral thing, in spite of coming to a different logical conclusion."
Example: If you find a wallet on the ground in which the owner is obviously nowhere nearby and no-one else is around, you are still expected to give it back, even if there is money inside. The satisfaction you get from giving the wallet back is not directly because you gave the wallet back; it is because you did the moral thing. In opposite, the expected guilt at keeping the money is because you did NOT do the moral thing. The reward/punishment for the act is only caused by having the morality in the first place, making it logically circular to be moral to be rewarded. A totally amoral (not immoral-just without a moral code either way) person would take the wallet and be better off than the moral person in the same situation, no matter which action(keep or return) the moral person chose. The amoral person would only gain money from the situation and have no emotional reactions either way, gaining resources and losing nothing.
Now, having said that...
1. If you do NOT agree with the bold sections, what is the flaw in the argument?
2. If you DO agree with the bold sections, or at least have a similar train of thought, what purpose or value does morality then have?