One of the problems is the definition of morality has been confused by philosophy. The analogy is although CO2 is fundamental to life; photosynthesis plant food, CO2 has been given a bad political name, so what is critical to life on earth, is now considered scary and evil.
Morality is rational, and not relative, if one understands the original meaning. Morality was designed to be the rules for a team sport. It was designed for the needs of a group and not the individual. The team has the property of becoming more than the sum of its parts. Morality was a set of rules designed to mesh all the parts into a strong team.
If you look at the ten Commandments, these are not designed for the individual. Having one God, would prevent open discussion. However, having one God is good for the group, since religious discussions and debates can divide the group. If we all agree, not to push this issue, the team stays stronger. There is individual sacrifice with the team benefiting.
Philosophy has confused the team meaning of morality, by suggesting morality means personal philosophy for living, out of the context of the optimized team. Individual choice is where things start to become relative, since different people have difference choices and needs. This causes the team to weaken; immoral means it weakens the team.
The analogy is a sports team that seeks a championship. To reach the championship, the player cannot all be hotdogs and/or place themselves first. They need to listen to the coach and sacrifice their whims for the team. The best players at each position will be chosen by the coach and not based on temper tantrums or politics. If we applied relative morality to members of the team, then everyone would want to have it their way. The team will weaken even though all the ego's feel better.
I prefer to define morality and ethics, as two opposing principles; team versus individual. Morality is an optimized set of team rules while ethics tries to rationalize, which means self serving addenda. Both are important, but a balance needs to be struck to become a champion team. Currently, things appear to slanted toward ethics, which results in less efficiency, higher costs and team division.
Morality is not relative, but rather is absolute. There is a sweet spot that optimizes the team and minimizes costs. Not all spots are sweet spots or else all teams would be champions. With a proper code of morality we can all come champions, no matter your role, The team wins. Ethics never allows everyone to be a winner. It divides into winner and losers.