Verb, you are a product of today's society. We're programmed from birth to hold certain actions as necessary and others as taboo. There is no natural construct for morality. If you were born in Japan, for instance, suicide isn't the moral taboo as it is here. In China the benefit of the group always trumps the benefit of the individual. In India (though they claim otherwise) the caste system is still very much real and children of the untouchable caste are forced to walk in the gutter if a higher caste is in the sidewalk.

You are choosing to hold yourself to a standard and claiming you have the best set of morals.

I wish there were a universally accepted set of morals. But, sadly, there isn't. What you hold inviolable, another finds trivial. 

Verb, you are a product of today's society. We're programmed from birth to hold certain actions as necessary and others as taboo. There is no natural construct for morality. If you were born in Japan, for instance, suicide isn't the moral taboo as it is here. In China the benefit of the group always trumps the benefit of the individual. In India (though they claim otherwise) the caste system is still very much real and children of the untouchable caste are forced to walk in the gutter if a higher caste is in the sidewalk.

You are choosing to hold yourself to a standard and claiming you have the best set of morals.

I wish there were a universally accepted set of morals. But, sadly, there isn't. What you hold inviolable, another finds trivial.

See, none of those examples help your argument. You're pointing out that different cultures have different interpretations of ethics--this does not show, prove, or even tend towards the idea that morality is subjective. Merely that, if morality is objective, then all those cultures are either right or wrong. I'm well aware that children are treated like shit in other cultures, and I find that deplorable, because it is deplorable. It's not okay just because they think it's okay. Their culture is shit.

Further, it seems like you're acting as though everybody in these countries thinks the same way. You imply that suicide is considered to be immoral in America, but what you'll actually find is that there is no clear consensus on that subject. I happen to think that suicide is perfectly okay. Sad, sure, but morally permissible. If someone disagrees with that, we can argue about it. Does that mean it isn't objective, because we can argue about it? No.

I already brought up scientists. Many scientists disagree on the nature of reality. There are theoretical physicists who support and back string theory--likewise, there are many critics of string theory. Many physicists argue about the nature of gravity. Mathematicians argue about the nature of math. Biologists argue about the nature of biology.

Does that mean science is subjective? Or something that varies depending on the culture? I don't think so.

1) I never said right ir wrong. They simply exist. You thinking they are right or wrong is one set of morals viewing another. Morals just are.

I never said you said right or wrong. I'm pointing out that offering us differing opinions on any subject matter doesn't induce subjectivity.

2) About science. Science exists separate from morality.

Science also lies apart from humanities, does this mean there are no correct answers in history?

For there to be a universal morality, it would have to come either inherent in our genes, or externally, say from a god or gods.

Universal =/= objective.

We can speak objectively about ontologically subjective facts; we do the same in medicine. I have no idea why you think it's any different here.

Sadly, the only true thing even close to a universal moral code is preserve your life and the life of your family. That's really it. While we live among technological marvels, we've not made it past tribalism. States, Nations, Religions... They're all nothing more than tribes. We still fight over resources, land and power.

I would ask you, then, whether or not you find it interesting that there appears to be a moral rule which transcends culture? Because that, to me, would hint that there's something non-arbitrary about the ways in which we could prevent unnecessary suffering.

The fact that we are tribal creatures is a modifier to any system of 'objective' morality we want to discover, not a refutation. All that tells is is that there is probably some legitimacy to values like loyalty and parochialism.

To perhaps make it a little easier, let me phrase it another way: ignore the word "objective". This is my argument: there exist courses of action which, when taken, encourages Eudaimonia (or human flourishing/well-being/lack of suffering).  My point is that when we are discussing what we ought to do, the Eudaimonic answer is the only rational one.

It's the only moral code that actually makes sense.