Morality has existed before people even came up with a word for it. People have an idea of what is right and what is wrong before there were any theories proposed on it.

An analogy would be that people have already been walking on the surface of the earth long before Newton conceived of gravity. Newton described this phenomenon. However, if it ended at accounting for why things fall, it would be useless; a theory that all objects tend to fall would work just as well, and being simpler than Newton's theory and predicting the same phenomena, Newton's theory ought to be removed by Occam's razor. However, Newton's theory included the three laws of motion, which explains and predicts almost all phenomena very well; far better than that can be explained by Aristotle's theory that objects tend to stay at rest. Thus, Newton's laws are endorsed by experiments and observations, and the "gravity" became a concept we all have become familiar with.

Let me ask a question: Can we live without gravity? This question can be interpreted in two ways. One, can we live if we are not acted upon by a force that would cause an acceleration towards the centre of the earth were there no normal contact? Two, can we live without the concept of gravity? Once this distinction is made clear, answering this question is trivial.

What are the implications of describing this... phenonomena that allows us to walk on earth? So what if we don't have this theory, we're not going to fall off the earth right?

Think of any physics question in your tutorial now. Notice that you have to use the concept of a force. A net force leads to a change in momentum of an object. Tension, spring force, air resistance etc are all forces. Without treating gravity as the force, it becomes harder to predict phenomena. Newton's laws provide an excellent estimate of trajectory. By altering the initial conditions, one can change the trajectory as desired. By obtaining an accurate description of nature, we can manipulate the trajectory of a cannonball to, say, hit a desired target. This is just like many other successful theories that manage to describe nature: explain, predict, manipulate.

Now let us go back to morality. What are the implications of arriving at a successful theory of morality?

A successful theory on nature describes nature. A successful theory of morality describes morality. Is morality objective like gravity? It would be difficult for me to prove that morality is not objective. I think I shall just assume that morality is subjective... the thing is while a subjective theory may not be falsifiable, it is more general than an objective theory. A subjective theory accounts for more phenomena than an objective theory, and in the case where neither theories are accurate, I'll take the more general one, which is the subjective view of morality.

So what is morality relative to? I'll suppose that morality is relative to "consciousness". Thus, a successful theory of morality would describe what a unit of "consciousness" would consider to be moral or amoral. It would then enable us to explain, predict and manipulate what a particular conscious being would consider to be moral or amoral.

If you caught the essense of the last statement, you would realise that this theory would have great implications, and is liable to use and abuse. This would enable the world to manipulate human consciousness to regard morality in such a way that the benefits to the society are maximised, and an objective moral standard can be reached. If everyone regards slavery as amoral, there would be no slaves. If all merchants regard moneymaking(as opposed to personal enjoyment) as their ultimate cause, merchants would be more efficient. If the scholars and scientists regard attainment of knowledge as their purpose, they would have greater fervour. If soldiers regard upholding the defense of their country as their duty, they would fight with their lives. This would lead to an even higher degree of specialisation of jobs. What's more, not only do people enjoy what they do, they would feel obligated to do it, and guilty if they do not. Each unit of consciousness would dedicate more time and energy to, presumably, what they are good at. The clockwork efficiency of an ant colony can possibly be attained.

This would also enable the manipulation of human consciousness to regard obedience and allegience to the state as the ultimate virtue. People are willing to fight to death for their leaders, and also be willingly lord over by their leaders. Personally I wouldn't consider this a bad thing... but in case the reader does, let us be reminded that in the eyes of the citizens, YOU are immoral.

I think this is quite cool.