Hi @lifenbeauty it seems to me that you equate "high moral" having some intrinsic value instead of having a contextual value. For instance in our western society if you kill someone that could be considered low moral and lead you to jail, or can be high moral, if that was sanctioned by the government during war, and killing another human being could give the status of an hero. So the same action, killing another human being can have different meaning, and be valued, accordingly to situational factors. This leads to another conclusion is that moral is dependent of external factors like culture or society, and as such is a learned system of values. Moreover, moral is not equated with consciousness, as consciousness is the background where mind expresses itself into being.
On the other hand, if you replace the word moral for ethics, that would have a completely different outcome, as ethics, are intrinsic values of the individual and are not imposed or defined by culture, and they are not contextual. In any culture or society, every knows that killing others is wrong, no matter what the culture says. The proof of this is the amount of traumatized veterans that have psychological scars not due to have been wounded in combat but to have committed acts that although approved by society and government, were against their consciousness as human beings - their ethics.
The bottom line for me it that ethics are more important than morals.
RE: Is it good to be a highly moral person?