Is Morality Objective?

[TinyDave]

There is an actus reus and a mens rea.
Guilty action and a guilty mind.
This is a nonsense, you are a poe.

The point of the question is to offer people an opportunity to make objective assertions, if any can be made.

In this case, ideas about a lack of intent rather than a lack of ability, and it's relationship to our mental development over time.  This is an objective assertion about the nature of a moral agent which is then modifying in an objective calculation of desert.  I could add asserted or alleged before every use of the term until the end of time but it's unweildy.  I also think this is the case.  If it -is-, though, or even if we so much as truly believe it is...then it does become a bit odd to see us reject moral objectivity while we assert morally objective terms, and with some insistence, no less.  I chalk it up to the term having been poisoned, rather than this rejection being a genuine reflection of our general beliefs on the matter.

Intent and ability are totally separate things.
I don't really understand your argument, this is because to act as an objective agent necessarily means that there is no subjectivity which means that there is no moral element. As described by you.