The question of morality supplies a necessary guideline to a logical argument between A & B where A has liberty to act and B is defined by the actions of A.
How then can A act without causing harm or altering the well being of B? This is the field of morality. It could be described as an arena except this implies competition where morality declares an essential equality throughout. A perspective of "an approach to", "a consideration with" and "a result of".
The absence of any discernible aspect of B through sensory apparatus available to A does not mean absence of actuality of B.
Absence of understanding of the potential reality of A by A does not mean the absence of potential for B.
Ultimately morality provides a developmental safeguard for A in its being presented to a situation that assume A must define B when if fact A is defined by B.
There is a lot of deep historical discussion on the subject of "the Duality of existence" within which we try to define reality either as individuals or as a social group. In the West we look to political leaders to define our collective responsibilities while we are extremely busy working to pay taxes before we can pay for personal interests. The question arises as to whether we have any time left to voice the need to redefine any aspect of our social reality. This is a question of morality to prevent errors of judgement and actual harm to vulnerable individuals within society.
Our observations are critical to what is happening and should be a continuous part of the process of social engineering but currently this is not so. Why (defined by the opening topic statement of "Tell me the definition of morality") ?