Bulgaroctonus

One could define morality as a code for behavior.
I'll agree that if man is to do anything, he has to be alive.
It seems you think morality should be based on common human experience, a sort of 'pragmatic morality.' Is this correct?

I am not moral, and I am alive. Hitler was not moral, and he was alive. Genghis Khan was not moral and he was alive. Morality is not a condition for life. Things like oxygen are conditions for life. This is a flawed premise.
This premise is false. Being in close proximity to people does not entail any moral action. One could just as easily associate with people to go whoring and drinking. I'll stick with Sartre, "Hell is other people."
Your conclusion can't hold up because its premises are false.

You've basically taken your second conclusion and plugged it in here. So this is not true for the reasons I listed above.
No, man does not have to be free at all to live. Witness the grinding slavery of the American South and the ancient world. Life is a very basic criteria; the cells of the human body need no spiritual or moral nourishment. The human body needs calories, oxygen, and certain minerals to continue.

You might say that morals are essential for a person's emotional health (only a majority of people), but that is something different.

I think this conclusion is stronger than most you have made. I can think of counterexamples to your exact wording, but I agree with the idea behind the conclusion. However, this conclusion does not directly follow from premise 1.