I think in the same vein as those who see the world being a place of connected spirit/energy/vibration. Dogma does not exist here. The rule is indeed survival. That said, we are spiritual beings in human bodies, and to survive a society/tribe makes agreements that are held to be harmonious to the society as a whole. Moral issues spring up from the misinterpretation of these agreements as being dogma instead of just the "really good idea" that they are.
An example is that it is a "really good idea" not to stick body parts into fire for extended periods of time. This can be moralized to state that fire is evil, and must be avoided because of its destructive nature. This kind of attitude comes about by those people who weren't smart enough get their extremities out of fires before harm befell them. Are there some people in every society that need protection that is "extreme" by other people's measures? Sure. Does that mean that society must vilify the things that are protected against? NO!
A last thought. In a diverse natural world that does not have dogmatic definitions of good and evil, and the measurement of the distance that you should put between yourself and something else is the relative harmony/disharmony that the object presents, there is the question of what society can/should do. In the natural law there is no "un-natural" act. How could there be? There are very destructive and disharmonious acts though. A mass-murder is is not un-natural. Killing is something that we are capable of, and who is to judge the motivations behind these actions? That said, a society can deem a mass-murderer as being destructive and dis-harmonious to a tribe/society, and the mass-murderer will be put down for the safety of the larger group. Is this "moral" or just good management?
Feedback? Opinions? Agreements? Disagreements?