To reply to the subject-question you posed, my intuitive guess is that there has to be a goal to morality. To be safe, i would rather call it a default goal. I will take this position for now. Because I am not sure what that goal may be? And, whether there must be a goal at all, i wish to get an answer by learning about this philosophical quest or path which i intend to take along with you.
However, for the time being let me make some comments to some of your observations:
One cannot perform a genuine act of benevolence without meeting the eye of egoism.
Is this not a mere academic statement. And some amount of paradox also seeps into the legitimacy of the statement. A genuine act which benefits someone or the self is still a genuine act (A genuine act of benevolence
means an act which does not harm anyone but only benefits or has some degree of gainful implications)
For actions of injustice are commonly held as more profitable than actions of justice and the opinions of others including God's are of the highest value.
That may be correct if you imply that 'actions of injustice' is the shortcuts people employ for personal gain, aggrandisement and personal satisfaction i.e's(egos satisfaction). However to make it clear, I am not
sure if 'actions of injustice' have a commonality to it as against the term 'rarity'. Even if you say 'widely held' it may not be factually correct without any data.
But if morality is more of an intuition, then one is likely to act justly regardless of belief system or interest in beneficiaries among society with the complete absence of self. However, the variations moral perception are not perceived by all.
Therefore, i think morality is not exactly intuitive. As I now see it, morality has a structured form to its presence and has qualitative differences both in time scale, geography, demography and mythology if i may dare. Its an explanation to the variation you mentioned.
Those who see it usually acquire it through indoctrination and never understands their own personal goals of morality. Those who tend to avert or miscomprehend their own perception and never distinguish right from wrong and may undermine the value of their existence while being satisfied at the same time.
Yes indoctrination and along with other sources for imbibing morality, we can rule out intuitiveness.
Further in the sentence, you predicate with an emphasis to a very interesting proposition of owning personal goals of morality. I have a diffrent take on this. And this may also partly deal with the main question you asked. Whether morality profits in personal goals or is morality the means for the society to acheive its own goals.
One may argue that both are concomitant or runs parallel to each other. One may also invoke that the whole is equal sum of (the total) parts. However, i think and would like to consider that Morality is a devise conjured by men to preserve status quo of the immediate society around as against the natural onslaught of change taking place one generation after another.