The greatest of all evils

If morality controls human behaviour, what controls human morality?
For a long time the idea of morality was tied to that of a governing force that would reword good actions and punish bad ones. How could we be moral without god? Recently many people begun to ask themselves how can they be moral WITH god. But really, neither of those questions is appropriate in my opinion. I believe what we should ask ourselves is SHOULD we be moral, with or without god.
Many people say that by shading morality, by relinquishing our moral compasses we loose what makes us human. We shall be no better that beasts. Murderers, rapists and all other sort of vile people will flourish. But is it?
A moral, in of it's self is nothing but a unit of measurement, much like a mile, a newton or a watt. It is the unit by which behaviour is measured. Thus, on one side of the spectrum you have the socially abhorrent and on the opposite the socially acceptable.
Morality and religion are strongly connected, and every religion, beginning with primitive animists and pre european death cults in the Americas and ending with, well, still primitive but somewhat more familiar religions like Christianity and Islam has a moral code, obviously from god, that forbids and allows certain things. The only justification Paul Hill needed to shoot doctor Britton was "God commands it" just as the only justification the killer of Theo van Gogh needed was "Allah commands it".
Atheists, adogmatic people and secularists in general have their own view of morality. A prime example would be Richard Dawkins, who sees morality as being a result of evolution. From the need to preserve one's self and genes, cooperation and by extension morality was born. However this idea is flawed on several key points as it only explains the good, the benign or altruistic side of morality giving no explanation what so ever for prohibitionist impulses. The urge to suppress, the desire to subjugate, the will to dominate. Forceful conformity in other words.
Morality is not only kindness. There are cultures like that of ancient Sparta where kindness was saw as a sign of weakness, thus immoral. In Buddhism the suffering of people is regarded as just punishment for transgressions in a past life. In Christianity the same suffering is considered punishment for the sins we made in this life. Morality does not resume only to kindness, but instead morality is also a vast source of cruelty. And there is no better example than a soldier. One of the most morally repugnant actions a human being can commit - murder because perfectly justifiable when committed by a military. Do soldiers kill because they are immoral? No, they kill BECAUSE of their morality. Their morality dictates that killing the enemy, whomever this enemy might be is not only acceptable, but necessary. Soldiers kill because their moral code demands them to kill.
Another good example of how relative morality can be is our diet. Most people of European culture, in Europe and the Americas eat pork. What a lot of people don't know however is that the sole reason we eat pork is because the moral unit of measurement is in the acceptable part of the moral spectrum. Were we muslims, or jews or vegetarians this moral unit would be in the opposite end of the spectrum.
What is keeping a muslim from eating pork? Fear that his god will be upset by this action. Morality in other words.
It becomes clear that morality is simply a behaviour regulator. It's purpose is to make people behave in ways they would not otherwise do. Why do parents who smoke usually hide their cigarettes in front of their children? Why do most parents avoid the subject of sex? Why do many gay people say they are straight? Why do fully grown adults go to church during Easter and crawl under a table? And at least a few of them will go home and beat their wives the very same day. Because society's standard say smoking in front of children is wrong. Talking to children about sex is wrong. Having sex with a person of the same sex is wrong and so on and so forth.
Returning to secular morality. Take the official reason of the Iraq War as an example. Weapons of mass destruction, which were not found. The government of the USA decided to invade Iraq using secular motives. Thus, human violence cannot be blamed solely on religious dogma or any other form of human irrationality. Also, it only provides an explanation for the altruistic side of morality, which again is not even universally applied.
But if morality did not arouse as Richard Dawkins might suggest, that how? Well, the answer might come from a very surprising source, bacteria.
What could unicellular organism teach us about the grate questions of life? What could those beings we commit genocide against on a daily basis teach us about morality? Firstly, they can very well prove that morality is not a human construct. Or even an animal one. Biofilm, the scientific term for bacterial colonies were until very recently thought to be simple accumulations, clusters of cells, completely oblivious to one another. However, this is not the case as there are clear differentiations and complex relationships between individuals bacteria. And where complex behaviour exists, governance exists as well.
What is governing those simpleton unicellular bacteria to gather and perform problem solving tasks, like finding food, defending territory and producing is not what we would call morality, but it is a precursor of it: A social adhesive that creates hierarchy.
Moving to more complex creatures the dog is a fine example, as any dog owner can instill morality in his or her pet. That's why when your dog takes a leek on your new carpet, it tuks it's tail in between it's legs and bows it's head in submission, before you scold it. And though that is true that by millenia of selective breeding we instilled the morality of dogs, it does not change the fact the raw materials for this education were allready there. To teach anything morality, not only dogs, that certain thing must have the ability to recognise moral units. Simply put a dog may not be born knowing that taking a leek on the carpet IS wrong. It's born knowing it COULD be wrong.
To understand a moral template, not only of dogs, but a general one, looking at wolves can be very enlightening. Wolves are pack hunters, led by an alpha male and an alpha female. The rest of the pack is made out of betas and sometimes even omegas. The role of the alpha is to lead. It leads the hunt. If the betas do not hunt properly, the alpha corrects it. If one of the betas steps out of line, the alpha corrects it. This is morality. Moral behaviour, with centralised governance. Control that comes from the top down.
When the alpha tells the omega to eat last, it eats last. When the colony tells some of it's members to scout for food, they scout for food. When the priest tells people to crawl under the table, they crawl under the table. When the government tells you not to smoke weed, you don't smoke it.
Morality has nothing to do with altruism, but has everything to do with control. It's role is to create a norm, a moral code, and to penalise those who do not comply.
However, there is an alternative to morality. Freedom. Freedom from the tyranny of morality, freedom for hierarchy, freedom from bowing to the ones above and stomping the ones bellow. And all that is necessary is shedding morality.
Not kindness, not goodness, no...morality. Morality, the usurper of the best of us and exploitedr of the worst in us. Morality, the wolf in sheep's clothing that convinced brilliant people that it is here to help when it is only here to tie us even tighter.
It is only by killing the idea of morality that we will be free.