Is it true that there is no absolute morality?

[Sterben]

I've seen people say a lot that there is an absolute morality, but it seems to me that there is not. For example, some people say that killing is ultimately wrong, but there can be no reason why one thinks killing is wrong, other than personal desire. Personal desire is not quantifiable, therefor it's an arbitrary measurement of a person's feelings. 

It would seem were it not for this problem, there wouldn't be religion, which tries to solve this problem through dogma, and the imposition of an imaginary creator of whom punishment is inescapable. It would seem to me, that all morality is nothing more than dogmas, whether it be social norms or enforced laws. 

How does one cope with knowing that all morality is arbitrary, and say that one respects morality beyond being blinded by dogmas, or simply appreciating the geometry of such arbitrary systems? on a purely intellectual level. The alternative is, of course, "psychopathy", where the dogmas and appreciation of arbitrary systems is absent.

By cope, I mean cope with the fact that the systems in place are arbitrary, so there's no one system which can ultimately bring about the best of humanity. Without an objective morality, of which one could appeal to every person through reason, there is basically only wars and dogmas that struggle for dominance.

 Is it morally good to murder  ?
 Is it morally good to abuse children ?
 Is it morally good to rape ?
 Is it morally good to steal ?
 Is it morally good to have a martial affair?
 and this list can go on

 If arbitrary what is right and what is wrong morally?

 Knowing it is absolutely wrong to murder can stop an individual from murdering while to say it is arbitrary wrong to murder can justify murder in one's mind

       It's an individuals morality vs group morality, Albert Fish felt it was not wrong for him to murder and eat children; mass society felt he was wrong . The Greeks and the Romans felt having teens and children for their own sexual pleasures was ok, and it was accepted by the society's at the time. Morality is revolving door. A better example that is more recent and less cringy, the cases of a Transsexual men and woman finally getting the rights they deserve. Ten or so years ago, they had to hide deep in the closet and reject their feelings. Some in society think these people are not moral people, but opinions have changed and now seeing a transgender person is not a major issue. They are just people who work and contribute to society.

       Now, can we honestly blame the Greeks or the Romans for their actions? I can't even judge them, it's similar to trying to judge a piece of art outside of it's time era. Can I judge Albert Fish for his actions? That is a tough question, both examples are major offenses in today's morality. I want to say judging Albert Fish is tough issue, but if I can accept the Greeks the Romans actions towards children in ancient times. Of course by default I would have to say his actions were extremely wrong.

     Now I'm curious on what the board thinks. If Albert Fishes actions were wrong, and the Romans and Greeks were ok by their standards at the time. Am I a being hypocrite to my own morality?