I would think a serial killer or two would think differently about that. And actually as a matter of fact, there was one serial killer ****ALTHOUGH THIS MAY OF BEEN A MOVIE I SAW, OR IF I REMEMBER AT ALL (A.K.A. I COULD BE WRONG)****, one said he actually enjoyed doing it.

Edit: This was meant as a response to the post literally right above me. Whoopdedoo.

Morals, fundamentally, are social conventions on certain distinctions between right and wrong behaviours. Social conventions are not universal, nor are they objective in the sense that they can be quantified, qualified and applied to or contrasted with intrinsic material truths or physical laws. Maths is objective because it is a working framework which functions when applied to the material world. Morals are subjective because they are consensuses of opinions on particular actions which vary between cultures.

There are of course, almost universal consensuses on some moral arguments such as "is it right to murder?" But these in no way provide us with a basis on which to assert that some cosmically correct moral conclusion on murder exists. The reason we have consensuses is much more simple: murder is an enemy to our social security. None of us want to be killed against our will (I say against our will because it is absolutely possible for someone to consent to being killed, yet for the law to regard this killing as an unlawful murder). All of us desire to live lives free from any somesuch violation of our will, and since we are social creatures, it makes sense for us to propagate notions which allow all of us to live as such. To be against murder and to be unwilling to commit murder is to recognize, through empathy, the symbiotic nature of human society. Interpersonal solidarity, I call it.

The answer to the original question is resoundingly, emphatically, "no", but the question itself is misleading, because something can in fact be considered (wrongly) objective if there is a universal consensus upon it. Take the murder of a healthy infant. I know of no contemporary human society (and if there are any, please point them out) who consider the murder of a healthy infant an acceptable practice. Therefore, a person might say "well, murdering an infant is objectively wrong". That's incorrect. It's universally wrong, but that could well change. I know that Spartan societies, even if a newborn was healthy, would bathe them in wine. Some children, who were otherwise healthy, might take an allergic reaction to the wine and thus be considered insufficiently strong, then the child would be killed. Is that wrong? Well, it wasn't wrong to the Spartans.