Does our idea of physical reality necessitate morality as something other than a format in which one categorizes actions (which leads to modified social behavior, social behavior uniformity in societies due to sharing/negotiating when it comes to conceptual framework and axioms, etc)?
I can't see any way to logically argue it does.
One can, however, append axioms to one's reality structure on which one may build a framework of morality. Some religions are examples of things filling such a function, but there are many other ways.
In the case of religion there is usually illusive added coherency from the appended portion that makes it seem like a necessary part of a reality idea.
There are also "secular" cases where the same occurs, such as when people invoke "what is natural", or have an axiom of "actions which yield results I like is "right", that which yields results I dislike is "wrong"", cases where it has to do with ideas of intent, and other sorts.
In the end, they aren't really necessary or even non-detrimental to having an efficient and all-encompassing understanding structure building/modification method, nor for deciding courses of action.
A delusional subsystem emergent from very common structural aspects of cognitive systems when it comes to humans.
I've seen no psychology study strongly indicating any inherent morals. Things that can superficially look like morals if one assumes too much, yes, but far from necessarily being morals. Seems like a framework without any hard coded rules.
