"in some, abstract, superfluous sense"
Yet, moral or immoral behaviour within societies, has real consequences.
Emile Durkheim analysed societies as held together, cohering, through the shared holding of, enactment, and celebration, of sacred values. He took this view, to try and understand religion in it's broadest sense, well beyond Abrahamic practices, to inclyde Confucianism, Daoism, Jainism, Shinto, and shamanic practices like among the Sami & on the Mongolian steppes.
This approach can help us to understand, that sacred values, those put beyond questioning, like habeus corpus in England, or free speech in the USA, perform community-defining and bonding roles, and that to challenge them is to challenge the basis of coherence of a given society. The emergence of values held sacred by the scientific community, replicability, peer review, and falsifiable hypothesees, can be understood as more than simply organisational, but as the nature and means of binding the community, through shared holding of these. The contriversies about Nazi physics & Soviet agricultural science can be better understood in this way, and the power of scientific solidarity in regard to Mutually Assured Destruction.
What is held sacred by a community is not frozen in time. Christmas and Halloween still exist, though they celebrate changed values to the ancestors who started these observances. They are meme complexes, and exist as cultures, lived, renewed, enacted. Religions are not just sets of statements, or cosmological claims, but that - and so is morality. There is continual revision, with continuity, through enacted behaviour, and what a community celebrates and defines itself by.
A local moral culture, is like a language. Cultural change, may help make a language more versatile, like the magpie nature of English, or the conscious simplification involved in creating Spanish & Chinese where multiple kingdoms had to adopt a new hybrid.
Jonathan Haidt has the ideas of a moral matrix, and appeal to a moral menu. He links different patterns of morality to herder pastoralists who must defend their herds or flocks through threats of vengeance, vs rice & wheat growers who must plant & harvest together and have more community-orientated rather than individualistic ethics.
I would identify a key meme complex, as being one that allows trade. Hospitality to strangers, settling disputes through arbitration, a commitment to settling debts. These are crucial enablers of accruing wealth, and whoever adopted them earliest and most consistently has prospered most. The Beaker People seem to have spread a culture of communal beer consumption that deepened the trade network. Alexander The Great was able to conquer only and exactly as far as roads had been built. The British Empire suceeded through trading cloth instead of spices, a commodity with a far greater opportunity to develop a network. The Cold War was won by the largest trade network.
I would follow anthropologist David Graeber's argument in Debt: The First 5,000 Years, that fundamentally wealth is the accruing of capacities for trust and cooperation, and when those evaporate tokens and materials are revealed for what they were - representations of those capacities, and entirely dependent on them.
So morality is a culture, with enacted systems of behaviour like a language, with real consequences for adopters like the capacity to maintain trade networks, which has played a decisive role in human history, in regard to which cultures spread.
Why shouldn't you steal? Because you risk a criminal record that will harm your job prospects, is the back-stop. But our behaviour in practice is mostly shaped by peer groups - will they reject or celebrate the behaviour? Game theory accounts better, than declaring axioms, for actual moral behaviour. And choosing to maintain unstable equilibria, over sinking to stable equilibria, can best account for what we 'ought'.