Morals - Objective and Subjective

[JuliaL]

I think you are mistaken.

Often mistaken, never uncertain.

Moral absolutism: There is at least one principle that ought never to be violated.

I claim-
The unqualified universality of, 'ought never to be violated' as equivalent to, "external to and consistent for any and all individual observers."
and " are agreed on and consistent for a [limited] set of individual observers" roughly expresses the idea that -

Moral realism is a non-nihilist form of cognitivism. In summary, it claims:

1. Ethical sentences express propositions.
   
2. Some such propositions are true.
   
3. Those propositions are made true by objective features of the world, independent of subjective opinion.

(Moral Realism)

Though 'independent of subjective opinion' makes this definition more comprehensive than I prefer or expressed.

I apologize for my inability to make my ideas clear as I do not have much specific philosophical training (after several years of practising medicine I went back to university and took some ethics (irony noted) and women's studies 30 years ago. And I may be mistaken again, but I think we're largely in agreement.
OTOH, I have a personal, idiosyncratic notion of morality which expands on what I find is the usual, standard definition. I see morals as a set of preferred behaviours which emerge because they benefit a recognizable self replicating informational organism. For example, in the case of human moral codes, they benefit the society in which they embed. As an example of a different organism and behaviour set, I offer the memeplex of 'a business model' which in its own context would be moral if it, built desirable products, made money and treated its customers well. By 'behaviours which benefit' I mean those that better provide the organism with opportunity to persist, expand and flourish.

I have not found my extended definitions to be used by others but I may have simply not looked hard enough.