I hate to wade into discussions already in progress, but this is really just rehashing an older argument I had not long ago, and misses the SAME point. In almost every instance we use the word "objective" we are referencing something that is accepted, not universal or absolute, just something that is authoritative. For instance, both our Hindu-Arabic numerals and tourney chess rules are considered "objective", so morality could be easily be classed as objective as well. What makes something "objective" isn't something like universal absolutism or even empirical evidence, but rather the authority it has, which is why secular law is objective and religious law is not. Secular law is enforced, authoritative, and binding; while the BULK of religious law has been scrapped as immoral or unethical(if not plain stupid).

Under the common definition and usage of the term "objective", we already have such a morality, and it is an evolving paradigm that changes with the society. It is NOT a weakness, it is a strength, and is what has let it stay in authority while religious law has lost any semblance of real commitment or obedience long ago.