it just sounds so emotionless and static.

That's how I see the world. It's fairly easy to see why people did things if you know all the details and facts.

Would you ever say you act upon instinct when faced with a 'moral decision'?

No.

Perhaps you subconsciously and quickly "weigh the pros and cons" in your head because you don't have much time to physically act. Would you consider that acting upon moral instinct? Or just physical instinct?

This would never be the case. The human body has many built in "safety" functions that allow it to keep itself alive, even if I am unable to keep up. It also prevents me from killing myself (which can definitely be circumvented). These are not morals, but biological functions.

As for other actions (jumping in front of a bullet for a loved one) these would be judged based on quick rudimentary pro/cons that I have somewhat pre-calculated before hand. It starts to get a bit complicated, as it all depends on whether I think that action is "inherently" (in most cases) be good (pro) or bad (con). Jumping in front of a bullet is generally a bad idea, so I probably wouldn't do it. If there were a particular reason I needed to protect something or someone, I might consider it.

In no way is this a "moral instinct". Just slow/fast pro/con weighing. As I said, I may regret my decision afterward as I finish calculating, or recalculate with new data. Also as I mentioned, I get this feeling a lot, usually because of said new data.

You didn't have any time to think about it, you just did it.

The only time I'd ever do such a thing is either accidentally, or in self-defense. Every other scenario would involve some sort of pre-calculated (or calculated on the fly) pro/con. Just knowing who Mr X is, is enough to give him a general pro/con for killing. If I didn't know, then as I mentioned, it would be inherently bad because of potential of use. Breaking/destroying anything is "bad" (a con) because it has a potential use.

ou didn't have time to weigh the pros and cons of killing him and there is one pro that stands out: you get to live. Surely that action is like a "default action" in given any situation in where you're about to be murdered. And would that "default action" be the same as a "moral code"?

If there were too many pros/cons to look at before I must make a decision, I'd go with whatever was "winning" at the time. Getting to live (as I mentioned earlier) is a biological function in many cases. And naturally I've put it under the "heavy pro" category. However, there have been times where I have indeed sectioned it under "con". These were times that are normally called "depression". In normal cases it's a pro.

Staying alive is usually a pretty big goal of mine. It's on my mind the majority of the time when I'm outside of my comfort area. Walking on the side walk? I need to watch out for any potential poisonous bugs/spiders/pests. Need to watch out for any cars that swerve along the road. Keep an eye out for anyone that might have a gun. Etc. I think about this stuff daily. Needless to say, I'm pretty on edge when I go outside.

I usually have a good idea of what will benefit me if I ever do need to make split-second decisions. But sometimes it's not possible, and I make bad ones. I am then disappointed with those choices. If I wanted to, I could continually choose what does not benefit me. I see no "moral" difference. As I said, it's not good or bad, just what entertains me and makes me live longest.

So if acting in my self interest and striving to live is a moral code, then so be it. That's a very loose definition and tends to go back to the whole "morality is subjective" thing I was talking about earlier. What's in my self interest obviously isn't what is in Mr. X's self interest. Neither of us are morally right or wrong. We just want different things.

So if I killed Mr X. that's obviously a con for him (unless he wanted to die) and generally a pro for me (saved my life). But if Mr X kills me, then it's a pro for him (he's a serial killer) and a con for me (I die).

So if that's morality, it's subjective. Which is what I stated at the beginning.