I feel like asking if morality is a myth, is an odd question. Are we talking culturally or interpersonally? This question kind of feels like it forces it to be contained in a predefined and binary definition and also opens it to many more philosophical debates. What is good and what is bad? People aren't binary and neither is the world we've created. Look at some of the historic cultural differences we've seen. I wouldn't say morality is a myth or even that it is a binding social contract, but a system defined by what is good and bad based on ones adopted rules. It's fluid and can change culturally and interpersonally. I also read some of your comments about how does free will exist if these social contracts are in place. I don't believe one correlates with the other in the same way that you might. Why would someone do something bad if they know it's bad? It's an interesting question and I think it's because of the fluidity and justification of ones "morals". I may know that murder is bad and would never just kill someone for the sake of. But if my life or my families were in danger then I would justify that murder, no longer making it bad. We could say that someone's justification for something is bad and punish them for it, but they could turn around and say that the punishment was also bad. The fact that we have murderers, rapists and bank robbers proves that free will exists. That doesn't mean that they won't be punished by their culture. I could be punished by my government for feeding the homeless, but for me that is the right thing to do and I will. Morality as portrayed, by being the end all be all of good and bad, could be a myth. But ones own internal set of rules do exist. And the difference in people's judgement is in itself what defines good and bad. I think the better question to "do we have free will?" is "are we free?". Does the "social contract" allow us to freely to act on our free will? And "if we have free will then does the social contract truly exist?" This is already getting pretty long and I wish I could continue but I've enjoyed the moments of thought. Thank you.

Morality is a human construct. It's real, but only real in the way that any word that describes a human construct is real.

Morality does exist, though it may be that we invented it. That being said, I think it's more like a type of social contract. Do the right thing, and all.

Morality is an idea based on consequences.

Whenever I get a question about whether something exists or not, I usually find the definition for that thing first. You have to ask the question that comes before the question. So I'll try to define morality, to to extent of my knowledge. For me, morality means a set of principles on which you decide that which should be done or should not be done. In Plato's republic, there are many myths which are established such as the myth of Er and the myth of people being moulded out of different metals to support and justify the systems of morality that are introduced. So in a sense, you could argue that all codes of morality are rooted in myths in the Platonist sense I guess, since our ways of looking at the world are based on various types of myths we choose to believe in. A myth in that sense, is a story carefully crafted to show what's right and what's wrong. On the other hand, when you boil it down to the individualistic level, someone could argue that morality is rooted in myth on the second definition of a myth. Which is a widely held and popular, but false belief. Because lifestyle choices, decisions and ways of thinking could be so varied between two people almost to the point of feeling alien. And most of those things are attributed to culture which, again, are deeply rooted in the myths a given culture chooses to believe, and as a result, an individual who belongs to that culture also believes in. Which may seem totally false and irrelevant to the culture of another individual. Say for example an ancient Mayan meets a modern man. The Mayan would see nothing wrong with sacrificing the man to appease his gods, and the modern man would see nothing wrong with celebrating diversity and having discussions about feminism with the Mayan. To each, the other's belief system might seem to be rooted in deep false beliefs. And that's okay. Nobody has all the answers. Plus considering which of any given two belief systems is "right" is another monumental task. So in essence, morality is both rooted in myth (the story) and myth (widely held false popular belief). I move to say that any belief we could have is never fully true because we only have so much information and understanding about consciousness and our nature in this universe. If we could fully understand a grain of sand, with all the implications that arise from it, see the whole history of how it came to be there in that desert at that time, the wars fought over that land, the people whose blood washed over it, the first cries of infants opening their eyes for the first time, the joys and the pains, I'd say we would have a better chance of establishing a worldview that is fundamentally correct. Until then, we'll all believe in our own pet unicorns. And that's okay.