Absolutely not. Quite the opposite. I am arguing for freedom of choice as an invariant value. Sure, morality can be overruled by empathy sometimes (steal bread to feed hungry children), but we still need the rules, and I am opposed to making them situational or based on current consensus.
(The traditionalist religious morality, I should note, is inherently relativist, because it is based on authority of a hypothetical being whose wishes are always open to interpretation).
So then you are arguing for a form of moral realism (in which case we may be in the same chapter or at least in the same book)?
I too believe in a form of objective morality. Though it's interesting, you said that your morality can be "overruled", where as I'd say that no such violation of rules is necessary, just that one only need to observe the context in which a moral decision need be made. Simply consider the goal/s of morality and do the "moral calculus" and the answer should present itself. Since we agree that our experiences are subjective, it is possible to come to the wrong conclusion, either because a person lacked the necessary information to make the best decision, or was incapable, for whatever reason, to make the best decision. But decisions can be evaluated objectively with respect the the goals of morality and the circumstances under which decisions are made and in this sense morality is objective. It's just that one should not look at the same decision from different frames of reference in order to determine the morality of a decision.
IMO, it is the intellectual laziness or incapacity (unwillingness) to make reasoned decisions that makes religious morals so appealing. It requires little thought which is why, so often, that religion fails to make good moral decisions because circumstances change, but religion has no system for evaluating new information (expounding on what you said with regards to religion).
There is only one thing I'm having trouble with.....
You claim "freedom is an invariant value (I assume you're using the word invariant in the mathematical sense to mean something like non-changing). I see freedom as one of the cornerstones on which happiness and well-being are based.
I wrote more but deleted it, I should stop here and just say that you've explained that you don't mean freedom in an anarchistic sense, so you believe in boundaries. Your freedom to swing you arm ends where my nose begins. You obviously believe in freedom, but not without social restraint. Please help me understand the logic, the intellectual process that determines where the boundary between your freem ending and your neighbor's freedom beginning. The example with your arm and my nose is a remedial one. But I can think of many examples where the lines are a lot blurrier.
Not all moral questions have simple answer, which is why I advocate a sort of moral poperanism. Sort of the scientific method applied to morals. One only need to evaluate a decision and it's outcomes with respect to the ideas on which morality is grounded. We know that something that was "good" 1000 years ago, may not be "good" today. We know this because there are certain facts about the world thus there is evidence that the results of certain actions can change with respect to the circumstances.
I'm just not sure how "freedom" helps us determine the the right or wrong of an action at a foundational level.