It's fine that morality is subjective. Objectivity isn't a requirement for ethical action -- I don't need to write a formal proof to ban a white ethnostate nationalist from my web forum.
That's because there have been hundreds of years of efforts within the legal sphere to solidify your private property rights. Much of that effort involved individuals parsing, understanding, and improving the objective realities in which they lived, and resulted in your ability to not give web banning much thought.
Slavoj Žižek, a popular philosopher, has stated in an interview, which I will try to paraphrase: "some morals should be absolute. I don't want to live in a country where we would need to argue if a rape case is justified or not. We should reach consensus on some issues and treat them as absolute. "
I don't disagree. But to me, that concensus is embodied in laws. Morals are still relative, not absolute, though they may be widely shared.
According to that principle, you can do anything you want under the umbrella that you find it ethical. Who made you the arbiter of ethics or morals? That's why there are laws. Laws provide objectivity.