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. 
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.