Are you posting that to suggest that morality is inter-subjective? Because I strongly disagree and if that is what you mean by morality then we are discussing different things entirely.
Let me explain the difference with an example.
If I were to say that I think someone, lets call them Ann, is beautiful, I could be making three distinct kinds of claim (well, I could be making more, but for the purposes of this discussion three is plenty). I could be saying that I personally find Ann beautiful, a wholly subjective claim. I could be saying that Ann is such that most people would agree that she is beautiful, or that she is beautiful to most people in a position to make that judgment (perhaps those who are attracted to women), which would be an inter-subjective claim and the sort most people would make when discussing whether or not someone is attractive as it is by far the most useful way to do so. If I were making this kind of claim, then I could be wrong and we could have a productive discussion about it, but there isn’t any objective beauty beyond what people think. However, I could also be making a third kind of claim. I could be claiming that Ann is beautiful, objectively. I could be claiming implicitly that there is such a thing as objective beauty and that Ann possesses it. If I were making that kind of claim I could be wrong, and indeed I think I would be wrong as I don’t think there is any such thing as objective beauty. However, the fact that others disagree with me would be no evidence of my wrongness, as objective truth need not be accepted by others in order to be correct, any more than the tide of people claiming that the chances of winning the car in the Monty Hall problem are 50/50 whether you switch or not have any affect on the real probability of 66.66…/33.33…
The point I am making here, is that when I talk about morality, when I claim something is wrong, I am making the third kind of claim. I am claiming that something is objectively wrong, regardless of whether people agree with it or not. I could be wrong about this. I could be wrong that there is such a thing as objective wrongness. It could be the case that there is no such thing as objective wrongness and error theorists are right. However, crucially, I am not mistaken about what I am talking about. I am not discussing something inter-subjective, I am making an objective claim.
Any other sense of the word “morality”, such as being what most people think of as right or what promotes the most flourishing, is not something I am interested in. I seek the answer to the question “how ought we to live?” if indeed it has an answer at all. Anything else calling itself morality is of no interest.