As an atheist there is no objective morality.

"Now, that being said, is there any logic fallacy to prevent you from not having any morality at all? Sadly, no there isn't. If you assume a truly nihilistic mindset and decide against giving anything the slightest bit of sense or purpose, then you have no way to determine what is right or wrong. However, if you do take a truly nihilistic mindset this also means that you cannot take any purposed action in life. Should you for example decide to steal your sibling's sweets, to eat them yourself, then the nihilistic mindset becomes invalid for you. In order to come to that decision, you first have to define the status of "having sweets" to be preferable to "having no sweets". You define sweets as "good" and that means you have an origin to build a moral system from: If sweets are a good thing, then taking them from others is wrong, because if everyone did that, it would probably end with less sweets for everyone, including yourself." We could just do things because we like to. But this is no morality and certainly not an objective one. Morality is supposed to restrict us in some way from our natural desires. If morality comes down to following ones own desires then there is no objective morality here. It just depends on the moral agent"s will and not the situation. Inevitably different people will have different views in every situation. For instance killing a man would neither be right or wrong. For one man his selfish being may see that the man is restricting his desires and therefore should be killed. Another person may find the same man actually is their desire and therefore should not be killed. Therefore, the man"s life is only valuable in its value to ourselves. "All I can tell you is: The moment you decide to do more with your life than to purposeless drift around, you will have reasons for your actions. You will have ideas that you find desirable and ideas that you find revolting." Yes but this is no morality. This is following one"s desires and is not built on reason. It is selfish, built only to serve oneself. There is no obligation to help others in your explanation. Why should I help starving children? As you said earlier morality is the question "what should I do?". As far as I can see, if the answer is follow our desires then that is no objective morality (I include utilitarianism in objective morality as even though killing a man may not always be wrong, it does argue that killing a man when the situation is X is always wrong). If the answer just requires me not to do certain actions, e.g. murder, then this still does not answer the question as it is what we "should" do and not what we "should not" do. There is no point according to this for standing up to injustice or giving to charity. These acts are not required of an individual. If I see a drowning child in the pond on my walk this morning, why should I save them? I am not required by an objective morality to save them. "If everyone helped others to achieve their own goals, everyone achieves his own goal faster, thus helping others is right, while impeding them is wrong. Objectively and universally." But this is again essentially selfish as helping others is ONLY right in that it helps me. The drowning child would then only be valuable in that saving it would help my aims. Giving to charity in another country is likely to have no effect on my life quality so therefore it is not moral to give to charity. We also have the free-rider problem, let others act morally so benefiting me and then just act selfishly and enjoy the benefits.