I don't agree. Without a point, none of what we do matters. Life might be a temporary experience, but this experience doesn’t even amount to a memory when it’s over. Our value sums to ‘0’; we ultimately affect nothing.

Yup, with you so far, except of course that we do continue existing in other peoples' memories, and through whatever other ways we affect the world (housebuilding, pollution of rivers, playwrighting, whatever).

Without a point there is no reason to adhere to any standard of morals other than what makes this experience most happy for the individual. However, most people would not attempt to adhere to a “whatever makes me happy must be moral” model of ethics.

I think this misses the whole "other people" angle. There's still a reason to adhere to a standard of morals for their sake -- they are all, after all, human beings too. I think a lot of people attempt to adhere to a "whatever makes humankind in general happy must be moral" model of ethics. IIRC this is called Kantian ethics, although it's probably considerably more widely known as "Star Trek II" ethics, and probably more people still come up with it independently of either Kant or Kirk.

Peter