So a question from me now… why the ‘doer’ in the first place? 
What happens to cause this? Is the ‘doer’ a creation of the social conditioning, a myth that is taught so that one lives with responsibility and is thus under control of the tenets of society?
That in order for morality to function effectively one must exist as a ‘doer’, because if ‘I’ am apparently pulling all these levers then ‘I’ can be held under obligation and responsibility.
It seems for me the ‘doer’ is a bit like the appendix at this point 
It seems it was something along these lines, that human beings observed that there were these instinctual passions which were a liability when living in a group and so a make-shift approach was to devise the ‘doer’. Because the ‘doer’ and responsiblity/obligation go like peas and carrots. It ‘worked’ so far as to control the excesses of violence and yet it inevitably leads to separation, resentment, duplicity etc So it can never be a lasting solution. But not only that, this ‘doer’ cements the human condition in place. For if ‘I’ am not ‘my’ feelings then human nature is apparently set in stone.
Huh so if ‘I’ am indeed ‘my’ feelings then ‘I’ can altruistically sacrifice ‘myself’. If ‘I’ am separated from ‘my’ roots no such thing will ever take place. Furthermore the human condition is not something that happens to ‘me’, not something ‘I’ am a victim to, rather the human condition is what ‘I’ am.