That's just it. I can't think of any we abide by that aren't written in the Bible. I'll have to sit on that, but off the top of my head, I think they're covered!
But that's not what I'm getting at. It's not that there are moral things that aren't in there. It's more that I can see the morality of someone who follows a different code, one who doesn't follow all the Biblical mandates.
I want to be very clear - again, just because it's so important - that I'm not talking about "I'll do what's good for me and you do what's good for you." More that there are some general principles that I do believe are universal moral laws (I'm emphatically
not saying that Biblical laws are not, just that for those who don't believe, they can form a reasonably good set of morals based on such
universal laws).
For example - John Stuart Mill's harm principle (as relates to Utilitarianism): the act that carries the least amount of harm to the fewest number of people is the act that should be applied (? - "done" is more correct, but "applied" sounds better). A person who applies this principle consistently has a fairly good moral code by which to live. No, it may not encompass all Biblical mandates, but it is integrally consistent.
Other people strive for integrity in everything. Others follow - I think it was Kant's idea of constructing a universal question about an act before doing it. For instance - if a person is about to rob a bank, she might ask herself, "How would the world work if everyone robbed banks?" Well, if she's smart, she'll answer, "Not very well, if at all." And if she follows that moral code, she won't rob the bank.
Another example - I've met people who have sex with others outside their marriage. And they believe they're perfectly moral for doing so. How? Because they standard is about integrity, and they have agreed - with their partner - that monogamy is not essential to their marriage. In their case, keeping one's word is the (one of many) standards they keep, and by not making monogamy part of their marriage contract, nonmonogamy violates no code.
It's hard to wrap one's mind around that. And I wouldn't say that - following Biblical standards of morality - that that's moral behavior. However, given the standards they have set (which, when viewed without bias, aren't entirely bogus), they've got a workable moral code.
"Without bias" is the key to understanding how this could be so. Putting on the veil of ignorance, as it were. Use the bias to disagree, of course! But to not try to even understand because of Christian bias strikes me as, well, rather limited. I can't very well have a philosophical argument with someone when all my answers are, "Because the Bible says so." Yes, that answer is good enough for one who has faith in it, and the hope is that, eventually, the one with whom I'm arguing with come to that conclusion as well, but it is pretty futile in such discussions because it uses no logic.
That's hard to do, and I struggle with it, as I have chosen to follow a Biblical standard. As I said, I don't see some justifiable things as particularly moral, yet at the same time, I can see them within a certain - workable - code of ethics.
In a not-so-small nutshell, it's not that I think some of the conclusions that can be made using other codes are inherently moral, just that after hearing about the construction of the code, I can understand how the actions done can be considered moral using them.
And actually, a person could come up with a moral code that matches Biblical mandate without the Bible at all. Now, their reasoning may be different, but the same code could be created. Many people believe in capital punishment (as a "for instance") for non-Biblical reasons. Just as some people are pro-life for non-Biblical reasons. Or stay monogomous. Or are straight. Or don't kill people. Or don't lie. Or fill-in-the-blank.
And on the legal front, the only moral laws that can be applied by the government are those that can be arrived at using non-Biblical reasoning (in addition to Biblical reasoning, if it's there, which, in many cases, it most likely is). That's not as difficult as it seems. But, there are myriad kinds of reasoning to use, so it's not as easy to come to agreement as it may seem, either.
Whew! That's some. Once I give my mind a break, I may come back with some more, if you'd like.
I'm just waiting for the nasty PMs to start coming!
I guess the morals you'd say are good morals and NOT biblical? I've heard people say we should confine biblical morals to church situations, but what are those and how can you tell the difference? 
