I offer an interesting point of view to the conundrum: if morality is not asserted by doctrines, then what?
In my opinion, morality imposed by religion and parenting are rigid rules that cannot apply to every individual and every scenario. Jean-Paul Sartre, a famous existentialist, gave this example in his lecture on humanism: during the German occupation of France, a French youth approached him for advice regarding his dilemma. He wants to escape to England, to join the allied forces to fight the intruders of his motherland but he has an aged old mother at home who is ill and might die if left alone. On one hand his loyalty to his motherland beckons him, and on the other, his piety to his mother binds him. In this situation, what is the moral thing to do? He will be labelled an unfilial son if he chose his country, but he will be dismissed with cowardice if he chose to stay.
We are faced with such "morality greys" constantly in life. It can be trivial but it might also be consequential. We often take comfort and seek solace in rules imposed on us, which we apply to "know" the right thing to do during moral dilemmas. But it is in my opinion that this is the most irresponsible and cowardly act to do. Because by handing our decision making to a fixed set of doctrines, we actually diminish our responsibility in making the decision. If the outcome of the decision is bad, we can always attribute it to the flawed doctrine, or in some instances, continue to believe that as long as we have followed the rule, we have done the right thing. This act of diminishing responsibility is selfish and inhuman. Hence, to be fully human, decisions on morality issues should not be handed over to a fixed set of rules.
Instead, to be fully human, we ought to take full responsibility for our moral actions. And to do so we have to first abolish all taught doctrines on morality. So the main point of discourse begins here.
I believe that in our complex society of interconnections, personal relationships should form the basis of morality.
As social beings, we are able to relate to and form bonds with people. This is how we maintain our complex network of relationships in society. And we should base our moral decisions on our existing relationships with people as this makes us human. An individual would be morally justified to support his ageing parents for giving life and providing for him since he was born. Similarly, an individual will not be morally unjustified should he choose to desert a father that does not provide for but instead exploited the family. I am not stating these examples as "another set of fixed rules" to follow. Instead, I am trying to say that every individual, based on their relationships with people, will be able to make morally justifiable actions. And this decision is not up to others to judge because they are not that individual making the decision and hence cannot fully understand the relationships involved.
So the bigger question comes, basing morality on inter-human relationships could be very narrow in scope. It seems that one can only apply this basis of morality to people they have a relationship with. On the contrary, in my opinion, we form relationships with people we do not know too. For instance, reading a report explicating the atrocities conducted under a military regime makes us detest the dictatorship in rule. Watching the news on catastrophes destroying innocent human lives we sympathize with the victims of floods and hurricanes. These emotions form indirect relationships between ourselves and the subject in perspective. As a result of these relationships, we do charity to save the flood victims and we protests for the human rights of people living under tyranny. This is a specific, relationship based morality decision. This also implies that we do not do charity to causes we cannot feel for. Doing what affects us in our indirect relationships with other people is not only moral - and also human.
The most provocative note in this suggestion of morality is the subjectiveness involved. Accordingly, there are no objective morality anymore. Indubitably, people can easily stray into a subjective state of selfishness and self-denial. An individual can easily convince himself that he is insensate to the feelings of others, or perhaps, he does not need to have any relationships with other people. He can easily justify his own actions as moral.
But we ask ourselves if moral doctrines can help such people? It does not. They will eventually still break the rules which bears no meaning to them. Moreover, setting the boundaries for actions that could undermine our society is not the role of morality - it is that of the law which is based on majority's interests.
Hence, rather than bind ourselves down with rigid doctrines that makes us insensate to making decisions of our own rendering us incapable of bearing responsibilities for our actions, lets free ourselves. Let your moral compass be directed by the source of morality: humanity and its complex interconnections of relationships.