Occam's Razor Meets Experimental Philosophy

So to follow up on that, if perfection is harmony between action and belief, it seems a strong motivator for reducing one's moral code to a bare minimum.  Complex codes, and especially poorly thought-out morality, become an impediment to perfection.  Moral codes containing internal confliction and contradiction, therefore, would be severely damaging to the self, for they prevent perfection by their very nature (at least in the context of those inconsistencies).

And yet, how many people can honestly say that they follow a simple moral code?  For that matter, how many people can claim that they follow a single moral code?  How many people can claim that all dimensions of the self - all the individuals that are packed into a single "body" - really value the same things?  Do the work face and fun face smile at the same jokes?  Does the tired body long for the same activities as the rested one, or the over-tired one?  Does the heart seek the same relationships as the hormones?

Were we to exist in the environment in which we developed, I think things would be simpler.  Why does my dog enjoy a degree of harmony and self-confidence that I lack?  Human beings no longer exist in the world that built us.  The rules of copulation are not the same as when our lives were threatened on a constant basis by creatures who were stronger and faster than us.  Our native attitudes towards food are not designed with supermarkets in mind.  We have placed ourselves into a foreign environment for which we are not designed (and an environment that changes far too fast for evolution to support).

So where could the support come from?  Can we refine down our moral core to something simple enough to survive?  Is there a set of ethics and morality without internal contradition, and that is not in direct conflict with our nature as animals - a nature that we can at best resist but not deny?

I try to picture a life where one can not feel embarrassed or ashamed when snapping at someone who did not deserve it, simply because circumstances made them appear to be a threat.  Or where it is okay to acknowledge physical attraction to someone with whom there is no intention to enter into a encounter/relationship. 

Society does not permit these things.  Why?  Because it leads to people feeling uncomfortable, people feeling uncertain, feeling insecure.  Perhaps because there is no clear way to reconcile such things to our current set of moral standards.

What would a simple moral code look like?  I am thinking this might be a reasonable one:

1)  Have fun and try to learn.
2)  Spread laughter and happiness when possible.
3)  Embrace love.
4)  Support other people's best interests as you understand them wherever they do not conflict with your own.

P.S. That last one will annoy some people, who will argue that it should be "Support other people's best interests, even if it interferes with your own" - but I maintain that that defies the survival instinct, and as such is in direct conflict with our animal nature, i.e. unsupportable.

P.P.S. I struggled for a while about whether there should be something in there about supporting one's family/offspring, but in the end I decided that it is already accounted for in 3 and 4.