( continues...) successful society. An agnostic might say nearly the same thing, but might qualify it with some reasoning along the lines of: since the natural world is all we can know about, and that we can't know about the presence or absense of the supernatural...etc.
Moral judgments and world views aren't going to necessarily be predictive of each other to anyone other than the person that holds them. Different reasons and different rationalizations (and even different moral positions themselves) appeal to different people for any number of reasons.
We do know a number of deeds that are obviously good and obviously bad to most people, regardless of their individually held world views. But how a person looks at life, his relation to other inhabitants of the world, and the world itself--why and how both it and we are here (this is all 'world view'), ties into his view of right and wrong (and as billytea points out, vice versa)--that is, it is part of the reasoning that lies to his moral judgments.
Do most of us go through this process when we're making a moral judgment? No, at least not usually, seldom consciously, probably not in cases that seems cut and dried, like the general one I've provided above. I think the time a person would be most likely to do this (and then probably not too consciously), is when he has to render a moral judgment that somehow puts two or more of his principles in conflict with one another.
And I realize no one cares about this conversation any longer, which is the nature of Natter, but there we go.