I would object that the use of probability alone does not make moral considerations non-objective. First, if certain mainstream interpretations of QM are correct, then the QM probabilities are themself objective, the most objective thing possible, and something more objective than these probabilities does not even exist. So, a moral decision based on complete knowledge about what really exists at a given moment of time would have to be based on probabilities too.
Then, if a decision was moral or not we base on what was known to the person. If his decision was based on incomplete information, or even wrong information (as far as he honestly believed it is true) and would have been morally justified if all this would have been true, there will be no moral condemnation of his decision.
This is a quite objective rule - but, as a consequence, the conclusions about what is moral or not depends on subjective facts, namely the knowledge of this particular subject. Thus, it becomes necessary to clarify what means "objective moral": Is a moral which depends in its conclusions on subjective things like the knowledge about reality of a particular subject already subjective, because of this fact? In this case, an objective moral is nothing worth to be considered, at least for me, because it would be in contradiction with my own basic moral principles.
Once we allow a dependence on the information available to a particular subject in an objective moral system, it is not only the objective probabilities of fundamental physics which can be used in such an objective moral, but also the "subjective" Bayesian probability which is (or has to be) acceptable, at least in its "objective" variant proposed by Jaynes, where the probability theory is simply the logic of plausible reasoning, and the rules which define these probabilities depend, in a quite objective, on the available information, so that two persons with the same information would obtain the same probability distributions.
And, once we allow that "objective" moral can depend on "subjective" knowledge, what other subjective things will be allowed to influence objective moral decisions?
A similar strong case can be made about the abilities of the person. If I'm weak women with no experience in fighting, or a strong man, with experience in various combat sports who has worked as a policeman, clearly matters if I appear in a situation were a victim needs defense against an attack. Again, the question if a person has some abilities or not is an objective one. One may morally condemn him for not having cared about his abilities appropriately, but this would be about the past, not about an actual situation where they are given. A morality which would not allow to care about this I would reject as stupid. So, again, or objective morality allows to care about subjective abilities or has to be rejected as inappropriate.
And, of course, this is not yet all. Once it is accepted that moral has to take into account subjective things like knowledge and abilities, what about subjective interests? How much do my own interests matter? There is no binary distinction but a continuum between inability to do some things because in would cause panic attacks or vomitting and simply not liking to do this. This prescription is quite objective - given a person with all its interests, knowledge and abilities, and a situation where it has to decide how to act, it is a well-defined game-theoretic question what would be the optimal strategy, and, if we could find agreement about all its interests, knowledge and abilities, and the details of the situation, we could reach interpersonal agreement about this optimal strategy. In this sense, it would be an objective moral.
On the other hand, this moral would be usually name "no moral at all", or, by those who recognize that all our moral rules appear in this moral as rules of the thumb, so that a person following them would be a very moral person judging from its behaviour, as an extremely subjective moral. So, I think those who search for "objective moral" want something completely different - some variant of a authoritarian, totalitarian morel prescribed by some higher autority - God, or some atheistic replacement for this.
Okay, it looks like you still aren't willing to ....
Good night, you blind fanatics to your dogma of cringing.
It becomes funny - there are contributions to the content of several people without any personal attacks, and the answer starts and ends with personal attacks. Which makes it more and more plausible that there is some personality problem behind this.