As someone who is not a professional philosopher, but with some degree of experience with life in general, it does seem some basic logical factors are being overlooked, with reference to morality and ethics.

For one thing, good and bad are not some cosmic conflict between righteousness and evil, but the basic biological binary of beneficial and detrimental. The 1/0 of sentience. Even bacteria respond to that dichotomy and as well that what is good for the fox, is bad for the chicken. So seeking out some ideal good makes about as much sense as seeking an ideal yes.

We are linear, goal oriented organisms in a cyclical, circular, reciprocal, feedback driven reality, so while our ideals are necessarily aspirational, the reality is more a game of Rock, Paper, Scissors. More is not always better.

We have brains because we do have to constantly balance and sort innumerable elements.

All our higher order social, emotional, cultural and civil structures are products of evolution.

Love, honor, trust, respect, responsibility, etc, would be meaningless to bacteria.

So when we treat good as aspirational rather than elemental, conflicts tend to polarize into us versus them and become a race to the bottom, of good versus bad.

Rather than each side being able to expect the other will hold to those higher, evolved standards and hopefully using such situations to develop further.

You compare it to 1+1=2 as being objective, but that too is a process. The mathematical operation is functionally a verb. If the action of addition doesn't occur, then they haven't actually been added.

In the void, there is no structure and no morality. It is only as actions emerge, that causes lead to effects.