Ah, morality. People have been arguing over what is or what is not moral for thousands of years.
As far as I am aware the oldest law code in the world (at least the oldest that has survived) is the Code of Hammurabi.
That criminalises a number of actions that most people would not regard as crimes at all nowadays and lays down punishments that most people would consider disproportionate.
The simple fact is that no moral assertion is or can be demonstrated with any degree of certainty.
In certain cultures it is considered acceptable to execute people for adultery; in most others it is not even regarded as a crime by the law.
The Bible, Quran, Vedas, Upanishads, Zend-Avesta and every other sacred book with which I am acquainted all contradict themselves on numerous points as well as frequently contradicting one another.
Very few moral philosophers have been able to make much sense of ethical questions either. Plato's efforts represent the least successful area of his philosophy. Aristotle made a better fist of it but because of his obsessive centrism found problems with certain qualities (his attempt to define 'truth' was a particularly inept example where he declared that it was a 'mean' between arrogance and mock-modesty). Hume managed to write considerably on the subject but ended up being unable to demonstrate any of his own conclusions. Kant tried to make out that there was a Categorical Imperative and that this required us to act in such a way that an action was moral if we could all wish it to be a universal law.
Nietzsche turned convention on its head and formulated a 'transvaluation of all values' that is largely of interest to psychiatrists rather than philosophers.
Nor have thinkers like Moore, Hare, Strawson et all been much more successful in attempting to determine what is and what is not moral.
In my opinion the only philosopher who has been relatively successful in the field is Schopenhauer. He was the first to distinguish clearly between 'descriptive' and 'prescriptive' morality (though he did not use those particular terms) and to show that ultimately what makes an action moral or immoral is to do with the concept of kindness.
Most people (pace psychopaths and fanatics) admire kindness and try to practise it; most people (again with the exception of psychologically disturbed people and bigots) detest cruelty and try to avoid it.
Now it is an elementary point in logic that no truth statement can contain a value judgement so that we may say, for instance, that we consider stealing wrong but that is simply a fact about our own opinions and not a fact about the inherent rightness or wrongness of the action.
Morality IS subjective but not in the sense that it HAS no place or meaning. It is subjective because it is not and cannot be determined mathematically or by the laws of logic or even by empirical observation.
On the other hand, I believe with Schopenhauer that kindness IS the good and unkindness IS evil.
If one adopts that as the broadly guiding principle of one's life I do not believe that you can go far wrong.