The subject of morality in the United States is a sticky one. Morality has come to mean different things to different people, & so it's becoming less & less fashionable for one person to apply morals to others. This is not, however, in the very nature of morality.
Fortunately, while there is a small number of antisocial or sociopathic people who appear to have no morals or a conscience, most of us do. The observance of morals appears to have evolved into us, both psychologically, on an individual basis, & socially as well. Without morals, the human race would likely have killed itself off, long ago.
The English philosopher Thomas Hobbes proposed that morality is a kind of "social contract;" abiding by moral principles gives one the right to be part of human society. Immanuel Kant went a little further, proposing that by the nature of this social contract, morals were to be stringently adhered to, & any compromise might disrupt the social order, no matter the goal.
Hobbes, however, demonstrated that God is not necessary in order to justify morality. Certain morals are obviously required if people are to live together, which is necessary in society. For example, killing is immoral, since if it were not, people would kill each other at whim, thus destroying society. No God is needed to explain this, as it's rather obvious.
Furthermore, there are societies which either do not believe in the western notion of God as a dictator of morals, or believe in many different deities which present conflicting moral ideas; yet, these societies have moral codes of their own.
So, God is not necessary in order to justify morality. Social harmony, itself, provides justification of morals. In fact, religious notions about morals can lead one astray, away from moral principles founded, rationally, on the need for social order. While this is rare — most religions observe well-thought morals which have been refined over the years — it is a possibility.
What is more, ideology is often based upon moral principles. Marxism, for example, is an ideology which considers capitalism, and private ownership of property, to be immoral & harmful to society as a whole.
Murder, for example, is empirically immoral, since it is the taking of human life, which runs completely counter to the welfare of society. This is rather obvious. An empirical view does not get in the way of morality.
Individual ethics are usually governed by one's conscience, which the PODoCE defines as a "moral sense of right and wrong, esp. as affecting behaviour." There seems to be something rather innate about the human conscience, since most human beings possess some sort of moral compass, regardless of the culture in which they live — even though morals can vary a good deal between cultures.
What is most likely is that the capacity for having a conscience is something which is part of human nature — as I posited earlier, probably as an evolutionary mechanism to protect the human race as a whole. This capacity becomes the foundation for the moral code which is taught to us, rather early in life, by our caretakers & by the prevailing culture.
This is something that many people do not fully understand. Wars pose a particular ethical problem. The killing of people, on an individual level, may not seem right, however — depending on the circumstances — it is sometimes necessary, & therefore morally correct. Sometimes, governments lie to their people, or keep secrets, in order to protect the security of the state. In individuals, lying & deception would usually be immoral, however, again, state ethics require a different standard, since there's the potential for many lives to be at stake.
Am I saying that all wars are moral? Certainly not! In fact, most of them are not. Or, only one side in a war has the "moral high ground," to use a common idiom.
Nor am I saying that the ends justify the means. Far too many corners are cut in the name of "national security."
Note that another source of misunderstanding is in the apparent hypocrisy that many discern in international relations. That is, a state may go to war with another, but cajole a third into making peace with its own enemies. This is a situation which may still be ethical & moral; for example, a nation may have a compelling reason to go to war (most likely, to protect its citizens), but may wish to promote peace abroad, in order to protect its people who travel abroad, & to open up commercial markets in other countries.
Persons in positions of authority must balance their own personal consciences with the needs of the state, & conduct themselves accordingly. It is erroneous, however, to apply interpersonal ethics to international relations. They are not the same thing.
The ultimate goal, of course, is the advancement of society. For this reason we do not have a "pure capitalist" or laissez-faire economy. We have anti-trust laws which prevent monopolies from seizing entire industries — since monopolies harm society (by giving one company or person total control over a segment of the economy).
Here again we are dealing with another variety of relationship. States deal differently with their own people, than they do with other nations.
Among the things a government has to do, is to enforce the peace among its citizens. To that end, a government usually has a justice system & a judiciary, to punish crimes and address grievances. The kinds of laws a nation passes, dictates the nature of this justice system.
For example, most nations have traffic laws. Without them, people might drive right into one another. There must be a way to regulate traffic so that accidents are minimized & people can travel safely.
This much, of course, is obvious. What is less obvious are the ramifcations of more esoteric laws & regulations. For example, the US federal government regulates how cars are built, dictating such things as their crash resistance, fuel economy, & emissions output. While these are admirable, in that they promote fuel economy, reduce pollution, & keep people safe, how necessary are these regulations? What effect do they have on car manufacturers? Of course, they drive up the costs of building cars, which are passed along to consumers in the form of higher prices. But what is the trade-off? A higher economic drain results from these regulations, one which is not necessarily offset by these benefits.
A fundamental debate is going on in the US & elsewhere, over regulatory ethics. Just what should governments be regulating? What are the benefits and drawbacks of such regulations & laws? Is it better to have a highly-regulated society? What would we lose, by jettisoning regulations & laws of questionable or marginal value?
A few of the more thorny debates of this type, are the following:
This philosophy is known as "moral relativism."
As we have seen, however, morality is the embodiment of a social contract. As such, it must be agreed upon by the majority of a society. Thus, there cannot be any such thing as a moral code observed only by one person. The idea that morals should be individualized, is inherently flawed. A rejection of communal morality, amounts to a rejection of all morality.