Actually, there are. Researchers in anthropology and the theory of games have theorised that what is "moral" is actually what is more efficient over time, generations, ...
For instance, they demonstrate that cooperating in hunting is more efficient than not cooperating in the long run, even for the strongest hunters.
Moral oughts are thus probably rooted in common sense, but that is not immediately perceivable and one has to study the theory of games to sense it.
Obviously, and since the theory of games is quite recent, it was easier to invent religions to account for this counter-intuitive reality.

Efficient with respect to what end or value? Cooperating in hunting is more efficient if what is valued is the least expenditure of time and effort for the most amount of killed prey. But perhaps I find hunting alone to be a challenge whose increased degree of difficulty is pleasurable. If what I value is that pleasure, then hunting alone would be more efficient with regard to procuring that pleasure. The point is that there is no observable, empirical fact by which one or the other of these two values could be derived as better.

(If you wish to continue this philosophical discussion perhaps it would be best to do so in private messages)

Cheers and thanks for the comment.