Should robbing a bank be allowed in a secular state if you can get away with it?

Let us see if we can discuss the notion of morality and try to get to the root of the moral premise and test it :) The robbing bank example is merely to draw attention obviously and not to encourage it.

Should robbing a bank be allowed in a secular state if you can get away with it?

Let us assume an ideal secular state, the members of this state got together because they were tired of being labeled atheist or non-believers.

Now imagine they have figured out that morality came about through trial and error and that it increases the chances of survival for an individual to be part of a group and by acting within the constraint of the group laws one is rewarded security and the freedom to pursue goals

Shouldn't the state be honest in allowing, robbing a bank if the primary purpose for an individual to become a member was to maximize the chances of survival. Robbing a bank increase your resources and chances of survival, provided that you can get away with it. The choice to decide this must stay with the individual keeping in mind the objective of maximizing survival.

Now some would object on the ground that if everybody was doing it that would harm the group (state) and thus decrease the chances of survival. First everyone would not be doing it because they don't think they can get away with it. Secondly, the individual should not be burdened with the primary responsibility of the survival of the group because that would clash with his primary objective for joining the group. Furthermore, the group already has effective laws in place for the survival of the group (state).

Lastly, don't you think, keeping in mind the origin of morality to join a group, robbing a bank if you know you can get away with it and then abandon the group is a good strategy? In fact then going on to join another group where nobody is allowed to rob a bank for fear of hell is even a better strategy. In this way, you further increase your chances of survival and gain more time with the added resources for the pursuit of happiness.

If the claim is that the whole premise of Morality is to increase the chances for the survival of the individual (by definition the survival of the group has to be secondary even if the individual depends on it for his or her survival) then it is reasonable to assume that the society then hinders the individual’s right to further improve his or her chances of survival. 

Luckily survival of the individual is not the premise of morality for the majority of us, as all sane and honest people including most Atheists will testify, even though they disagree with our premise but have to agree on the resulting conduct even if they themselves don't have a clear testable premise for it :)