I’m looking at this in a simplistic way; maybe I’m wrong. I think there is no absolute morality if we set aside belief in the Torah as such, for those who believe that. For example, in pirate society, someone who doesn’t steal is immoral. So as I understand it, society is the one that determines the moral rules—sometimes in a completely arbitrary way, sometimes based on one set of values or another—and whoever doesn’t fall in line, society simply spits him out. So when you answer questions with “moral” or “not moral,” do you mean your own personal morality according to your worldview?

Maybe I went on longer than necessary. What do you mean when you say that something is moral? Whatever accords with what society perceives as moral?

I asked whether you meant to ask if there is absolute morality, or whether it is a product of social agreement. I answered that it is not a product of agreement. And now you’re coming back and asking that again? Do you want me to write it again: no. There, I wrote it.
The examples you gave are not relevant. The fact that there are different moral conceptions in different groups really has nothing to do with the issue. When there is a dispute, that does not mean there is no truth. It only means that one is right and the other is wrong. And besides, pirates are actually a bad example, because they themselves do not think that what they are doing is moral.

What about pirates when they’re children—what do they think then?
So who is the authority that determines true morality? And based on what?

No one has the authority to determine it. Who has the authority to determine whether there is a law of gravity? Reality.

So by what do you determine that something is moral? You say that the fact that there are different moral conceptions does not mean there isn’t one correct one! So in your view, is it impossible to know who is right, or is it possible?
If you tell me that divine morality is moral because God does not change, I would understand—but that’s not what you’re saying, so what are you saying? Are you saying that there is a fixed morality as part of the world? What is it? How do you identify it?

By what do I determine that there is a law of gravity? By what I understand. I can know who is right: whoever I think is right. Morality is a fact, even if it is not observed with the eyes but with the mind’s eye. And the fact that there are disputes—so what? There are disputes in science too.
And suppose that divine morality is moral (I didn’t understand that sentence) and God does not change (why does that matter?)—so now you can know what is moral and what is not? How exactly? By what you think (unless you tell yourself that this is what God thinks is moral). There is no difference at all. Just as Jewish law is what God wants, and yet there are still disputes and different opinions. God neither adds nor subtracts anything on this issue.
By the way, I do indeed think that what is moral is what God regards as moral. And the validity of morality derives from God. That really does not matter for our discussion.

So if you basically advocate moral absolutism, which is essentially a theory/belief, then an atheist/agnostic cannot be moral according to your view?

I don’t understand what you want. There is no connection here between one thing and the other.