The way I think about this is that
collective (shared by a group) isn't the same as
objective (not influenced by personal feelings or opinions, and representing facts). There is definitely such thing as
shared/collective morality, but there is no such thing as
objective morality. Morality is based on people's empathy, opinions, subjective views, beliefs, etc., so by its very definition, it's impossible for it to be objective. Just because they're shared doesn't mean they're factually or objectively right; it only means there is a shared consensus amongst people, which forms a group of collective views. Just think about the trans movement (not trying to drift into that topic, though): regardless of what your personal views are, if you step back and look at it, it's clearly a battle between two (or more) opposing
collective views of morality. If there was an objective morality, we probably wouldn't have all the conflicts and debates surrounding it. Another example is if you look at the Jewish Holocaust: there were many people who believed they were honestly doing the right thing, because Hit.ler had influenced people so much that he warped people's views. Yet, most people think Hit.ler deserves to be ass-raped by pineapples in hell for the rest of eternity. My point here is that when people aren't healthy (Hit.ler, in this instance), cruelty can
seem like justified and morally righteous acts. So, as I said: collective isn't objective, which is why there is so much opposition.
Now, it could be argued that there is an objective quality based on cause and effect (which, like @
Averroes, I also tend to look at life through a lot). Yet, even to this, I would still argue that different qualities, values, and stances, possess value in their own varying roles throughout life. One person who has a difficult time firing people (high agreeableness) might see it as unethical to ENJOY laying those people off--yet, the person who enjoys laying those people off (low agreeableness) could present the perspective that these layoffs are dragging those who work hard down, because they are lazy and don't try to contribute anything of value to the team. So...different values, stances, perspectives, personalities--we all have our different strengths and weaknesses, and such diversity in individuals is actually a good thing, because we can cover each other's backs in our differences and weak points. That variation is the beauty of it all: different individuals have their own wisdom and insights to offer. Different people will notice, comprehend, learn, or understand, different things throughout life. Each of them are useful to varying degrees, relative to the role individuals are in.
Did I make any sense to you at all, or no? I hope I articulated my thoughts clearly and in a way that made
some sense, at least.