People should do nothing they don't want to.
Why? What if I want to slaughter small children for fun?
All you have is preference, perspective and aesthetics in your arguement.
There is no universal moral imperative or dilemma.
What you describe is merely figments of the imagination.
I believe your arguement is sinking.
I've not argued for a universal moral imperative. But there is a delima that we face every moment - how are we to act, especially with other humans?
Altruism suggests that we should act selflessly. That other people exist is not a figment of the imagination. That selfish motivation causes great abuse in the course of human interaction is not a figment of the imagination.
And yet unprovable things-in-themselves through actions are not.
Depends on the context. It is not unnatural for humans to devise them, but it is obviously unnatural for them to be shown to exist.
Which is the point. Arguing that something is natural and therefore justified is incoherent if we define natural as anything event in reality.
Where is your ghost of the machine for moral actions located at?
There isn't one that I'm aware of.
And what is morality beyond likes and dislikes?
An endeavor to be a decent human being. The most basic idea being to promote human happiness. There are many different approaches to promoting human happiness, but none of them rely on likes and dislikes. Generally, they try to determine the best way for humans to inform their actions as to best promote human happiness.
Why should I even care about other people's likes or dislikes?
Depends on the person, I suppose. But if you mean something like 'why should I care about being moral?' then the answer is happiness. We might disagree about the pursuit of happiness, but if we agree that we should pursue happiness then we agree that morality should be a concern.
Why should it matter?
Is not our existence one of competition?
Often times our existence is competition. Some of that competition is healthy, some of that competition (the sort I think you mean) becomes mired by selfinterest and leads to the abuse of human kind.
And yet toleration of individuals within your own species at the expense of your own survival is harmful to the self preservation of your own self.
( Or at the very least can be.)
The initial point was that something being natural does not equate to that something being okay. That natural events can be harmful.
You have no support for this line of thinking.
What line of thinking? That killing other humans is unnecessary? In the original context, it doesn't matter so long as there are at least some cases where killing another human would be unnecessary.
However, aside from 'man has a gun to your head' scenario's I would argue that killing other humans is unnecessary. Even if the result is that you might perish. After all, you are quick to proclaim the meaninglessness of life - why then do you value your life so much?
I have already state that unconditional actions do no exist as every action has conditions which envelops through selfishness.
Unconditional actions do not exist, you are right about that.
That the conditions surrounding an action are influenced by selfishness does not mean that the action is selfish. I may have found myself in a terrible mess because of my selfishness, and still be capable of sacrifice for the sake of another.
Selfish/selfless refers to the agent's motivation. Only boldface arrogance can honestly maintain that no one can act for the sake of another. You may not think they should, but that such a thing is impossible is impossible to prove.
All actions are also acted out revolving around the self who is the producer of them which only expresses a selfish inclination.
Depends on how you define "self". The term is used in different ways by different people. If you don't mind, could you give us a definition of how you use the term here so as to avoid confusion?