If it appeals to most people, it is of little use. A moral code is an ideal to be strived for, and few are interested in setting the bar very high.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -- John Adams, second U.S. President
I believe the same might be said for a stateless society. The only reason we have governments is because no one can stand the alternative. I believe that the way forward is to provide better alternatives to government, things that make government irrelevant, things that restrict its abuses, but not the elimination of all that is barely keeping a finger in the dike of untamed human nature.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. -- American Declaration of Independence
I simultaneously hold the (apparently) conflicting views that men ought to be free and that a situation where everyone does what is right in his own eyes is a recipe for disaster. I am not concerned about contradicting myself, because such conflicts present an opportunity to learn a Greater Truth that resolves them. Light is both a wave and a particle... hmmm... and opportunity to pursue a deeper understanding!
“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.”
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson
Let the great be great, that we may learn from them. But encouraging moral relativism as a great cancer that ought to be resisted. I hereby resist it.
There is an absolute standard of right and wrong burned into our firmware along with an implaccible determination to ignore it. It has taken all of recorded history for great men to decode and document that firmware. We ought to teach our children that wisdom of the ages and deviate only where it is obvious that that wisdom has failed. Refinement and distillation obviously continues, but If everybody is encouraged to start over, most will have no idea where to start and the few who are able to think it through will only repeat the mistakes of our ancestors. We are fools if we do not stand on the shoulders of those giants.
You will say, "How can we decide what should be taught? Whose Shoulders should we use?"
I believe that those who are interested in finding that answer will find it. Those who are not, will not.
Absolutely we should stand on the shoulders of giants. I never suggested a clean slate on wisdom, merely adaptation. The last word on morality has not been said, and never will.
A thousand years from now, what will our descendants say of our current morality? That we freely experiment upon our kindred life forms on the planet? That we subject them to slavery for the consumption of their flesh, when the need for that has long vanished? Is this justified because they lack the intelligence and power to defend against us? When we meet our more advanced superiors in the reaches of space, would we accept their treating us in like manner?
What will they say of our judgments of those who are different, as we genetically engineer our physical forms and merge with our technological creations? Does it make sense to judge the myriad of relationship structures that might form between these diverse sentient beings? Why are we so judgmental today?
What will they say of our perceived moral right to judge and punish? To hunt and kill enemies as vengeance for attacks by others? Or to uphold conceptual ideals like democracy, transparency, free trade, borders, and bibles?
And for those that might argue their own moral codes would never condone these things, what would they say of our willingness to stand by and be silent?
This evolution of ourselves and our ideals is inevitable. If morality does have an objective basis, I believe we are a long way from finding it.
It is impossible to prove that there is any single objective source of all right and wrong. We are each entitled to our opinions. Were society's greatest thinkers to construct an authoritative moral code, built on past great thinkers, but which contradicted your personal views in certain respects, would you abdicate your sense of moral justness completely and wholeheartedly to the code? If the situation called for a choice, which would you choose? And what would you expect of others in the same situation?
Do not fear that the recognition of these differences will lead to a breakdown of society. These differences have always been present, but society has managed them in different ways. To participate in society, each individual needs to recognise its cultural norms and bear the consequences of conflicting behaviour. Power blocs establish to enforce rules. Laws are established by governments.
In the absence of state, other mechanisms need to be brought to bear, and with imagination we will build them. Recognition of differences in moral code does not require tolerance of harmful expressions of those. It is not a free-for-all because defences will be built consistent with people's different moral standards, as they have been in the past. But in the absence of state, there is an opportunity to accomplish this in better ways.
There is no practical value in hoping that everyone in society will suddenly agree on and live by some perfected moral code. It is better to be honest as a society and recognise it is something we need to keep working on together over time.