Is there such a thing as an objective moral?

It's kinda like asking "why do your parents love you?". I guess you could say those morals are hardwired to a degree. We don't really know the reason beyond what we feel. Just kinda do.

The universal morals, such as 'thou shall not kill' originally came from the moral relativism of a culture's perception of God. But with the creation of the U.S. based on 'natural law', American's found a way to say that such things are according to reason, as John Locke pointed out. That is why America could have such universal laws and still put up a 'wall of separation between church and state'. It didn't matter if you were Hindoo (as Jefferson spelled it) or a 'heathen Catholic', as they were thought of in those days in the US--you were compelled to abide by the law of reason which said that all men owned themselves (modern language. 'Individual sovereignty' was the old concept, which is making a huge comeback. Just Google it.)

Jefferson said after the end of the first term of Congress that for the first time in the history of man, man's powers of reason had been trusted to write and enact laws.

Wearing black, or wearing burkas, or putting ashes in the shape of a cross on one's forehead or the dots worn by Indian women on theirs, are forms of moral 'relativism'. Moral subjectivism, on the other hand, is "the theory that proper human conduct is to be determined by each person individually. The foundation for this philosophy includes the view that there is no absolute truth, and that truth is merely in the eyes of the beholder." http://www.conservapedia.com/Moral_subjectivism

There has been some research to the effect that morality is a biological instinct, sculpted by evolution.

It is important to note that "society" doesn't really play a part in evolution. There has never been any conclusive evidence of ANY trail evolving above the level of the individual. In other words, we (and other creatures) evolve traits because they serve the individual--not because they serve society. If a trait favored society over the individual, the individuals that possess it would not survive to pass it on, so you can see why morals can't have evolved because they're "good for society."

Instead, morals serve the individual, by giving him the skills he needs to "work well with others." Working well with others promotes one's own survival, so these are skills that benefit the individual.

When two or more people live in the same area they have to adopt some rules about who does what to whom. Any such rule is called a more, pronounced "mor-ay". The adjective form is moral, and the habit of following mores is morality. Mores do not have to be right, only accepted. Another group on the other side of the river might have very different mores. Each group tends to assume that its local customs are universal laws.

Complete objectivity has no place for morals, and morality has no place for complete objectivity.

(Sometimes it is a sin to kill, and other times it is a sin NOT to kill) "Moral relativism". In my opinion. Of course there are many who disagree. Those are either "Absolute moralists" ( Murder is always wrong) or "Moral nihilists"( Murder is never right or wrong to begin with)

But since we are all human beings, complete objectivity is impossible for us, and we should not try to achieve total objectivity, less we regress into heartless creatures. Even animals live by codes, they do not kill their kind for food. Us human beings simply have highly evolved codes, and yes you are right about morality's role in being essential to our survival.

I don't think so, we can only truly judge an action by the consequences.