Performing greedy deeds is immoral.

Morals is not separate from instinct. This is not confusion on my part, but actually a field of study with increasing validity. Search for evolution of morality or similar terms to find a wealth of information on the subject.The capacity for having moral feelings is biological and such feelings are instinctual, giving us a capacity for instinctually feeling whether an act is right or wrong. Moral theories may be attempts to rationalize morals, but the fact that people normally don't follow any one moral theory indicates that the premises of most of these is false and/or they don't accurately protect our moral interests (how many really follow the philosophy of selfishness? How many true utilitarians are there?). Few moral theories "fit" with our instinctual feelings of right and wrong and so moral theories in general are not relevant in people's day to day lives, instead merely being brought out for the big questions which evolution has not already equipped us with a moral compass on how to deal with, such as on the question of abortions or euthanasia. How everyday-morals is biologically emergent can be exemplified by the existence of psychopaths, people who lack normal emotions or morals, despite being part of a society in which such morals and emotions are the norm. They are morally different because their brains work in different ways from normal, healthy humans. Similarly, a person suffers a brain damage may become a less moral person.Like humans have moral instincts, so do animals. For example, pecking orders or ranks are common and may be exemplified by how an alpha wolf has eating rights before a wolf lower in the hierarchy.While morals first evolved throuh natural selection, that is not to say that culture and ideas do not flavour morals, or that moral ideas can't propagate like memes for various reasons, but some things tend to be similar. For example, let's say you have a couple. If the woman should become pregnant with another man without telling her partner, he might spend resources raising someone else's child. To avoid this, one would expect feelings of jealousy or possessiveness to evolve which in turn could motivate a general moral idea that women should be faithful to their men. You would expect this to be the case in the vast majority of human societies and exceptions to the rule are likely to be predictable, such as possible situations where the woman's lover on the side would be genetically closely related to the man and/or chilren are raised collectively so that the parental investment does not differ much in either case.Con writes that morals don't exist and that there is no good and evil. Ultimately, this is true and something we agree on. There is no moral authority outside human beings judging them. Humans and morals exist as a consequence, not by design. But morals are part of human nature and shape behaviour in a predictable way and so can be said to have an existence. Knowing that it is a product of natural selection, we can predict or model the evolution of our own moral instincts. In this way, morals can be said to have an existence, even if there is no moral authority out there imposing them on us. Morals are relevant to us in that they regulate social behaviour and, as such, have a direct consequence on how we behave, our social health and wellbeing. So while there may not be a God who judges things in the manner of good and evil, we are all more or less moral beings judging ourselves and eachother. While one can hypothesize ideals or situations where oneself or others do view an act of greed as morally good, the idea of greed or a person being greedy generally carries negative connotations and jugment. For all practical purposes, yourself and others opinions of yourself as a moral being matters and an act of greed is generally considered an immoral act.I'd like to point out that although a system like capitalism may promote greed, that doesn't mean people's morals change so that they view greed as morally good.