Yes, this is basic Socratic stuff. Being an excellent cobbler doesn't make you an excellent person. And being an excellent football player doesn't make you an excellent person. That's just fucking obvious, isn't it?
It's obvious when you say what you mean. But you still haven't told us what makes an excellent person. You seem to be claiming that a morally excellent person is an excellent person, and when we ask you about actual moral cases, you claim that you don't know, that morality is "difficult". Just what good is your claim, then? You tell us it's easy to see a tree, but impossible to see right and wrong in the examples that have been given you. Moral theory is useful when it tells us which acts are right and which are wrong. You give extreme examples that most would agree with, on pain of being called insane, but you expect us to be insane enough to accept your claim that morality is just as easily seen - except that it's not, for when it's an example that's not settled by your claim, you simply shrug your shoulders and say - "Well, tough luck. I don't know the answer".
Again, with all this verbiage, all you have done is to make a single claim, that morality is "objective", and then use extreme examples that most would agree with, and when someone disputes not the moral choice itself, but the basis for that choice, you scream "Reductio! Reductio!" It's an insult.
The biggest problem with all this is that newbies might think that this is all actual philosophy, which it is not.