Are moral values correct?

 We are humans. No matter what happens or what may not happen, biologically we are but another mere organism who gained intelligence. We are considered to be at the top of the food chain, and thus being so we are aware of our surroundings and know countless consequences of things that other organisms do not know about.

One trait of humans (Or at least, most animals in particular) is the sense of a moral compass. To differentiate between right and wrong is a quality all animals have but humans seem to have a more "diverse" sense, to say the least. Our moral values went up as to form social norms, traditions, and most importantly, law.

But is there a point? Is being so-called moral the correct way to life? When you start to view morals in a much wider angle, our morals do not seem do "good" as we may put it. 

When you think about it, moral is just a manifestation of a pigment of the human mind. If you don't get what I'm saying, picture this: You're walking by the side of the road and feel bad for some street dogs on the side, so you decide to help the poor guy out by feeding him some crackers, which your mind thinks is "moral." Later on you get robbed by some masked guy and behold, out of nowhere the street dog you fed earlier jumps the robber and although the dog may have brutally ripped his cranium right out of his head, at least your stuff didn't get stolen. 

When the dog got fed, it felt a sense of connection between you despite the act of kindness being small. And blah blah blah, as sweet as it sounds, we're here for the logistics of the situation here, we're not taking the feelings of organisms into account and looking at it in a logical angle. When you got robbed, by technicality the dog would get nothing out of saving your stupid self from the robber, and yet it did. 

The small act of kindness was enough to connect you and the dog together, saving your stuff and more importantly yourself. In this situation, the moral value was in fact, logical, as it was a simple act which didn't take much, and saved your stuff for the most part. But what about cases in which the moral values and logistics don't interwine?

Like for example let's say you're on your last note of cash and you see a homeless guy by your side. It's freezing outside and you need the money to use the subway to get home. But then there's the homeless man, who probably hasn't eaten for days and needs it more than you do. Would you rather give the homeless man the bill and walk home in the freezing cold or take the subway home in the warm A/C.

In this case, morals and logistics are on the opposite ends. You can only pick one, however. Would you take the logical solution or the moral solution? In this case scenario, lots of people have many different opinions regarding this, whether its attention seekers who want be be different, wanna-be saints with no sense of preservation, genuinely good people (rare specimen), and maybe the so-called heartless guy who'd rather take the subway (me).

There is no good, there is no evil, and there is no in-between in this case. However way you want to put it, either the homeless guy wins or you lose and vice versa. It's pretty paradoxical here. 

Selfishly speaking, the logical answer, to take the subway is the better option, and selflessly speaking, the moral answer, to give the homeless guy your last bill. It's a raging fight between so-called good and so-called bad, when in both cases the well-being of atleast one person is taken into account.

Technically both of the options are good, because it ensures the goodwill of either person, so maybe moral values and logical thinking can co-exist together?

No. That's not happening anytime soon. Nihilist approach, I know, but it's simply not possible (From my perspective, at least). 

But hey, both options are better than to rob the homeless guy and have money enough for tomorrow's subway too.