Is it true that there is no absolute morality?

[Nonpareil]

Opinions themselves are the culmination of a series of physical interactions, and are not more than that.

Yes.

Unless you are going to argue free will or indeterminism, then you are trying to separate diametric opposites which aren't actually diametrically opposite.

No.

"Subjective" is just a word for those objective processes of which one has the capacity to be aware.

No, benny. We just discussed this. That is not what "subjective" means.

In the search for the ultimate source of morality, it will easily be seen that it is not only arbitrary-- it is not even MOSTLY arbitrary.  This can be seen by looking for moral behaviors in worms, in lizards, in birds, in higher mammals.  You can clearly see that the motives for moral ideology are more apparent in mammals, and in apes in particular.  The love of self and others, guilt, social fears, and so on are ingrained in us.  That they manifest in different sets of rules means that those moral rules (called "morality") are highly subjective  That they are omnipresent in humanity, and that all human societies have moral rules of some type, means that the moral impulse (also called "morality" but holding a different meaning), are intrinsic to the species.

That other apes also show at least some signs of the same impulses shows that they developed before humans did; research shows that chimps and gorillas have a sense of right and wrong and of fairness, for example.  Our instincts as social animals, therefore, represent an objective morality

No, benny. They represent a consensus morality, which is still subjective, because it is still only considered valid if you share the same opinion on what is right and wrong.