Morality stems from human social evolution and thresholds for acceptable behavior have changed over time. So the default position is the null hypothesis in which epistemic default: non-existence and non-effect are assumed until empirical evidence proves otherwise

You just confuse what ought to be for what actually is that that’s a fallacy but what you described is the exact opposite of the moral compass that a good majority of a share today there are a subgroup of people who would oppose the idea that it’s wrong to kill someone some people who even kill people will say they feel it’s wrong but yet that is an outlier group within another outlier group so the numbers there are not substantial for any kind of sampling whatsoever. So let’s make an observation back in tribal times. Killing the neighboring tribe was seen as not objectively wrong because they saw it necessary for their survival. That is a fact so my question you is why don’t you kill today?

Sounds to me like morals are subjective than buddy wouldn’t you agree?

Well, the answer to what you are asking is how we perceive cruelty today in better terms it’s our threshold for what we would consider cruel and unjustified. We have a much lower threshold for what we would consider cruel and unjustified today then we did in the bronze age, ancient slavery, ancient concubinage, and essentially pillaging and murdering was perfectly fine. Not because it’s written in some abstract law within the universe that we cannot see it is because we put value points on the morals we deemed to have more benefit for us

That’s because we’re evolved social creatures that developed empathy to survive living so close to one another. We naturally developed that to get away from the type of tribalism humans practiced then and into the nationwide tribalism that we practice today