Yes yes I know language changes, but that doesn't mean I'm not allowed to be annoyed at a language trend that is damaging the ability to convey or even conceptualize information.
"Prison labor is a form of legalized slavery and that is bad." 
"That's just morals. To each their own." 
The implication of "morals" as a summary of ethical and philosophical discourse tends to lead to such "morals" being dismissed as irrelevant or even irrational because they can't be measured in a test tube in a laboratory environment (neither can the concept of logical positivism but that one gets a pass).
Less commonly but still in existence is this version that is used by right wingers for a different but still grating purpose.
"The problem with society today is there is not enough morals. That is why bad things happen. There needs to be more morals in the family and in the school." 
It's still a crude summary, but one with even less philosophical consistency, that takes the already crude idea of "morals" and turns it into some kind of currency of goodness that is measured between those that ostensibly have a lot of it 
and those that don't. 
I'm not challenging or condemning your position on "morals" there as much as I'm saying that summarizing all ethical/moral concepts into a single crude word like "morals" does arguments both for and against them a disservice.
Language changes and all that, and I know that and know it happens whether I like it or not, but I see it as a bad sign that it's getting a bit harder for many people to even conceptualize some what they're against... or even what they're for.
That's all I was getting at in this thread.
For all you said that you might think you'd seen as unethical/immoral, you also stated:
To me, that means that you do have some ethical framework that I can vibe with, even if you don't necessarily have the fancier terminology on hand to describe where you stand.
My issue with many in the "morals don't real" crowd is where essentialist/eliminativist arguments are made, under pretenses of leftism or progress or even just raw scientism, that then dive deep into Nick Land territory where the only sensible outcome is atrocities for profit because at least there's some materialist clarity to them even if it only benefits the rich.
My point of contention and the point of this thread is when all such discussion, that you just mentioned, gets crudely and roughly packaged as "morals." This can be done to dismiss all such discussions (which does class struggle as a leftist concept a gross, treacherous disservice. Why stand for anything as leftists if we can't even stand for that?) or it can be used to weaponize them into a crude superiority currency where chuds say they have "morals" and we (slurs here) leftists don't.
Without the blocks of TL;DR links, I'll say that you seem to have a cool and good ethical foundation already because you see the class struggle inherent to our system and value people over codified (and easily exploited by those with means) codes of conduct that typically say it's always wrong to use violence against violent threats (and what is a police force, or a military, but a legalized monopoly on violence?).
I'm not even trying to go that hard against moral relativism (outside of a mandatory dunk on liberal treatbrains that use the concept to justify atrocities worldwide because morals don't real and those primitives have mud huts standing in the way of lithium treats) as much as I really, really dislike the sloppy catch-all packaging of "morals" to summarize complex and nuanced concepts in a way that removes most of the aforementioned complexity and nuance from them.