"World of no morals" isn't that a misnomer.
If a society truly had no morals it would simply fall apart there would be nothing to keep order.
That is an excellent philosophical question!
Apologies upfront for my wall-of-text - TL; DR is at bottom.
Strictly speaking, it does depend on any given person's understanding of the term 'morality' and what it means to them and their social circle - i.e. what any specific human subculture deems to be 'accepted social mores'. (those mores differ from region to region, religion to religion).
Morals for any given person could be understood to mean 'I should do good things and hate bad things and those who do them' - while there are commonalities, the nitty gritty definitions of good/bad may differ between cultural groups, and therein lies the problem.
As one example pulled from a certain monotheistic doctrine, even the implied violence within the meaning of the currently used Anglo phrase 'to hate' has changed drastically from ancient aramaic implications to simply 'love less', to abstain, stay away from or avoid (one might even say 'turn the other cheek').
Note also the distinctions between the meaning of morals, laws (i.e. government legislation not religious laws) and ethics.
Even with those distinctions, there are flaws within each, due to the flawed nature of human societal hierarchies and power structures.
It can be said that there is a big difference between 'the law' and 'justice' - so too with 'morals' and 'justice' - both are exploitable for abuse.
Misintepretation of ethics also can be used to suppress opponents on political grounds, and deliberate cherry-picking of ethical guidelines contained in the UN charter of Human Rights leads to very weak and abused laws in various countries pretending to honour those Human Rights, to justify atrocities so long as they aren't your political allies, and have no voice or power to oppose you.
A 'world without morals' existed just fine throughout the animal kingdom before the tiny subset of homo erectus tribes within it decided around 1.9 million years ago, to predicate some extra behavioural laws to emphasise and self-justify cult-like obedience of a powerful minority - practicing a social hierarchy not dissimilar to instinctive mob behaviour, weeding out an arbitrary subset of those deemed non-conformant/disobedient, and closing ranks around the remaining axiomatic definition of accepted 'normalcy' - or 'doing what is currently deemed to be good and proper' - the specifics of interpretations of the definitions of various static-but-ambiguously-worded 'thou shalt' or 'thou shalt not' moral decrees continually change over time depending on the whims of the powerful elites leading those cults (often known as religions), and depending on shifting tides of sentiment within significantly large sub-populations, to gain concensus on what is and is not 'acceptable'.
Unfortunately, the end result of 'morals' and the associated blind mob-like obedience to them and the persecution of any who disobey regardless of the merits of their non-conformance, is to divide society - destructively (especially weeding out any intelligentsia or outspoken opponents of those unjustly claiming divine rights and powers in the name of some deity).
We are seeing this to a great extent in our global system of corporate mass media's profitable technique of generating cycles of antagonistic hysteria, false narratives, and division - e.g. the religious cult-like call by vested interests and corrupt appointed administrators pretending to be scientists to "believe in the science"
- when the actual practice of science demands that you NOT "believe in the science" but to continually question it, test it, and seek accurate repeatable peer-reviewed findings - in open forums, not in redacted or secret corporate protected storage, hiding any data which undermines or negates what the vested interests tell the public.
This continued blind-faith obedient practice of 'morals' can be described as the antithesis of inclusivity or human commonality/universality, and ultimately this abuse of contrived 'moral outrage' will itself further destroy any hope for unity of human society (splintered already by nation, culture, religion, phenotype, language, etc).
It acts to manufacture consent for war and atrocity of human against human, all to create profits for those powerful wealthy elites who have always stood at the top of the hierarchy of those moralistic cults - usually without exhibiting anything but lip service & symbolic adherence to said moral codes, as they believe themselves to be above laws and above the 'good masses' who obey the morals they were indoctrinated with - obediently hating whomever those morals tell them to hate.
Ultimately, the Darwinian / instinctual survival imperative of most animal species - to simply reproduce - and either care for the young until they can survive on their own, or give birth to sufficient quantities that a minimum survive through chance - requires no morals to exist - and the interspecies ecological balance of those animals would be fine if it were not for the destructive human species laying waste to the planet and to each other - with plenty of morals and 'ethics' being used to justify the laying of waste.
TL;DR - Morals are a dangerous tool ripe for abuse by those in power to control even the so-called 'educated' masses and keep them (i.e. society) divided into ever-more violent and antagonistic factions.
Mr Mackey version: Morals r bad, m'kay?