We are all amoral beings

Of course motivations can't be moral, only actions can. You can't choose your motivations therefore you're view is that you are destined to be immoral before you even do anything! Another instance of you relying on determinism...

You are yet to make an argument for utilitarianism. The premise 'every being tries to maximise its own preference-satisfaction' can easily (I would say much more easily) lead to the conclusion that we are amoral beings.

'How am I to live?' doesn't have a correct (factual) answer.

So all the scientists who ridicule philosophy as mere sophistry are closed minded? Have you ever considered that you may be wrong, that philosophy is just a game of no value. Consider two philosophical ideas that had some value, the Atom and Alchemy, if philosophy had any value for evidence we could have found chemistry and particle physics much quicker, but philosophy is only interested (according to you) in a good argument and any knowledge gained is incidental. Do you even understand why the Atom and Alchemy could be relevant philosophical questions?

We may well be destined to be immoral before we even do anything, but we can also 'choose' to act in a different way (I'm probably a compatibilist on free will).

No, it doesn't, because from that premise you get the next premise which you haven't successfully challenged, namely that there is no logical justification for putting one's own preferences above those of others. This leads to utilitarianism: if we are to maximise the satisfaction of our preferences - which it is impossible not to - we should maximise the preference-satisfaction of every sentient being.

I'm arguing that it does: unless you can refute the argument above, it does. There are no consequences if we do differently, but we're still, objectively, doing the wrong thing.

Anyway, I doubt this conversation can go much further: it was certainly very interesting.

Humans lack morality. Being moral is a fictional, unattainable quality. Most people say they have morals but in reality no-one follows them. My argument is that it is impossible for a human to follow a system of morality. In essence we are amoral beings. Discuss.

Definitions:

Morality is subjective. It is possible that some people are amoral. But the fact that "principles concerning right vs. wrong" have existed (e.g. Confucianism, Christianity, et cetera) fundamentally disproves the idea that we "all" are amoral. And the very fact that "some people say they have morals" makes them inherently NOT amoral, because even if they don't abide by said morals, they still involve questions of right and wrong. Just because you come up with a set of morals, doesn't mean you have to follow them.