Yes yes I know language changes, but that doesn't mean I'm not allowed to be annoyed at a language trend that is damaging the ability to convey or even conceptualize information.
"Prison labor is a form of legalized slavery and that is bad." 
"That's just morals. To each their own." 
The implication of "morals" as a summary of ethical and philosophical discourse tends to lead to such "morals" being dismissed as irrelevant or even irrational because they can't be measured in a test tube in a laboratory environment (neither can the concept of logical positivism but that one gets a pass).
Less commonly but still in existence is this version that is used by right wingers for a different but still grating purpose.
"The problem with society today is there is not enough morals. That is why bad things happen. There needs to be more morals in the family and in the school." 
It's still a crude summary, but one with even less philosophical consistency, that takes the already crude idea of "morals" and turns it into some kind of currency of goodness that is measured between those that ostensibly have a lot of it 
and those that don't. 
I'm not challenging or condemning your position on "morals" there as much as I'm saying that summarizing all ethical/moral concepts into a single crude word like "morals" does arguments both for and against them a disservice.
Language changes and all that, and I know that and know it happens whether I like it or not, but I see it as a bad sign that it's getting a bit harder for many people to even conceptualize some what they're against... or even what they're for.
Just using the word 'morals' might be oversimplifying things, I guess? Like I agree using the word "morals" can be quite reductionist when discussing complex political and ethical ideologies. It's a broad term that often oversimplifies the nuanced perspectives people hold.
Then again im a baby when it comes to this stuff so keep that in mind
That's all I was getting at in this thread.
For all you said that you might think you'd seen as unethical/immoral, you also stated:
To me, that means that you do have some ethical framework that I can vibe with, even if you don't necessarily have the fancier terminology on hand to describe where you stand.
My issue with many in the "morals don't real" crowd is where essentialist/eliminativist arguments are made, under pretenses of leftism or progress or even just raw scientism, that then dive deep into Nick Land territory where the only sensible outcome is atrocities for profit because at least there's some materialist clarity to them even if it only benefits the rich.