what should i even say?

[Esquilax]

Couple of problems I have with that.
One, there are a shit load of "generally speakings" in there. Pain is too general a concept to be considered as moral or immoral. Pain simply is. If I have a migraine it's not immoral.

Of course there's going to be some generalities in there, because life is too complex to make broad based declarative statements about; one can always refine these things further.

The act of inflicting pain is closer, but even then the complications are Legion. What of People like a good spanking? Or when I stick an inch or so of needle into someone's ankle?

Like here, for example: I could winnow this contention down further by talking about inflicting pain without consent, which removes the bdsm crew from being put under the immoral umbrella, but then of course you could bring up the example of, say, parents immunizing their children, where that pain is nonconsensual. I'd then need to clarify further, noting that the potential benefit for the person experiencing that pain outweighs the pain itself, and that parents can decide in the best interests of their offspring...

This is a big issue, and not always a simple one. We're talking about a moral system with an objective foundation, not a complete moral system handed down from an objective source. The latter is probably impossible, anyway; even a god given source isn't objective, it's just subjective to what some have determined to be a higher standard.

So perhaps we should make our objective standard harm rather than pain. But again we run into difficulties. If stab you in they eye is that immoral? Not if you are trying to do the same to me?

One might argue there that, even if I was attempting to harm you, ending that conflict by harming me still wouldn't be the ideal situation. But since I would have already breached the moral code by attempting useless harm to begin with, the moral act would be to stop me, non-lethally if possible.

I'm not sure baseline facts we know for certainty is a fair way to describe concepts like harm or pain, there are too many riders and amendments necessary to make them the determinant factors.

That's why these are general rules, and not rigid ones: "pleasure is generally preferable to pain," allows for nuances and adaptation based on context, yet it's still objectively true.

Even life or death is a bit hazy. What of taking one life to save another? Or, and here's the fun bit, what of perspective. If I tell you that ending one life will save two, is it moral to take that life? What if the one life is an elderly terminally I'll patient and the two lives saved are kids in need of transplants?

Moral dilemmas are one thing, but not having a clear answer doesn't alter the fact that life is generally preferable to death. Hell, the whole reason these dilemmas are difficult and uncomfortable is because they involve the inevitable loss of life, something we find to be less than preferable.

To me an objective moral code needs to be applicable in all circumstances and by all people. Can you give me such a code?

Can anyone? Bar a few very basic axiomatic statements, life is far too complicated for sweeping generalizations.