system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Is there any good answer to "why be moral?"?

Edit: I guess another way of putting the question would be to phrase it the way Macintyre phrased it (paraphrasing Macintyre paraphrasing Kierkegaard): For what reasons do we have to even think, act and lead a life in terms of "good, bad, excellent, virtuous, evil,..." at all?

I've considered many views regarding this issue but a lot of them don't seem to connect to the actual theory itself aside from some naturalist virtue ethicists like Foot (or Aristotelians in general for that matter) which connects the moral theory with reasons for action but all of them have  the problem of "real interest" (a discussion of this by Williams in his Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy). Kant doesn't really give you a reason to be moral at all, just says that it is immoral to violate the famous formulations but we CAN violate them. I'm not saying that means we "should", I'm questioning whether the "should" actually gives you a reason to follow what you should do at all. Utilitarianism of the Benthamite-Millian type answers the motivation question by linking the higher pleasure of being a utilitarian with the act of utilitarianism (maximizing welfare and minimizing pain) but this feels like a delusion, the claim that it is in the interest of the moral agent to be a utilitarian because being a utilitarian is itself a higher pleasure that is pursued.
I'm also not talking about "moral" in the concrete such as "donating to charity" or "saving a drowning person", I'm talking about the reasons to do any of these, whatever it os that they have in common to be called "moral".
Sure, maybe I'm speciesist to favor humans to animals (Singer's claim) but there's really no reason to care about it if you haven't already adopted the moral rules and virtues of Singer's consequentialism.
I'm currently in favor of Williams's "internal reasons" hypothesis which states that whatever it is that you do, it must be of a personal sets of reasons for actions that you already have from your biologically constituted (the sensation of empathy for example) and culturally developed sense of value. There is no reason apart from this (possibly changing) set of values. No "transcendental reason" (Kant) or "real interests" (naturalist virtue ethics).
gpt
Kant actually says that we have an innate desire or intuition towards treating others with dignity in our inherent worth as humans. From an evolutionary biological perspective as well, this would be supported as our species could only survive tens of thousands of years ago through cooperation. There's nothing about humans as individuals that is competent in the realm of predators. Our strength was in our numbers.