Great marriage advice.

[Crunchy]

Morality only evolves as we creatures do and have evolved, therefore morality is as subjective as evolution itself. (i.e. not at all)

No person chose to have empathy as a huge part of human nature. It doesn't matter at all that some individuals can be psychopathic and lack empathy just as it doesn't matter than some people are suicidal. Empathy is an evolved characteristic that benefits intelligent social creatures like us en masse. Until you can demonstrate that evolution is subjective, you won't be able to demonstrate that morality is subjective.

Empathy is not necessarily morality. So far all I see from you is a position that morality evolves. I say that morality or what is considered moral changes and not always for the better and not necessarily driven by evolution. 

You did hit on one piece that governs a part of the subjectivity of morality, society. The society, for the most part, will dictate what is considered moral. 

And it does matter on an individual level. 

Ever consider the concept of set and setting (minus the drug component) when it comes to morality?

Then I think we have different definitions of morality. 
If you mean principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior or a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, or culture that is meant to be good for humans (which is how I define it) then we have to determine in what context this applies. For example, it is not a moral question to ask if it's good or bad to be caught in a landslide. Falling rocks have no morality. So we can clearly determine that morality only applies to moral agents like humans.
  
IMO, the issue is not about morality existing outside of human beings, (making it universally objective) but whether the judgments we make are more than merely arbitrary.  Therefore, the facts concerning the physical nature of humans force us to gravitate to our basic needs as a means to any other end. You get nowhere without oxygen for instance.  I've pointed this out in other discussions around morality by highlighting Maslow's  hierarchy of needs. No one chooses what our basic needs are, therefore they are not subjective.

It is an objective fact that Maslow's basic rungs have value to us that allows us to survive long enough to pursue other goals. This means that it is an objective moral fact that it is in our interest to value these things. These would be the basic objective facts at the core of morality.



If, however, you define morality as anything you want it to be, then that definition has no boundaries and it is not possible to reach any conclusions about a definition that has no boundaries. Is this what you mean by morality?