One cannot have an objective morality and then say it is subject to data and relations which must be accounted for, before making a moral judgment. If life is inviolable, we can't attach conditions which make some life slightly less inviolable.
What you have defined and claimed to follow is a subjective morality.
What you just posted requires things constant and completely known for all time. Humans are temporal beings living for short periods of time, evolved, and living life as process. It is impossible to apply any objective reality of your specification to humans.
That said humans can live to ideals they imagine. Human imagination is limited and so is human observation and experimentation. On the other hand declaring an idea, whether by invoking God and his intentions, or by some other means, say rational, and specifying how it is to be sustained is subjective.
The morality I espouse is matching perceived and understood world to imagined ideals, bringing imagined into line with lived, making an objective morality.
You have your objective I have my objective. You have your subjective I have my subjective. I can reconcile mine. Go ahead reconcile yours.
You have confused ideals and moral. They are not the same thing.
What is "ideal"? What does this mean? What does it mean that human imagination is limited?
We can refer to John of Liverpool who said, "Nothing you can sing that can't be sung." Please tell me of something I cannot imagine. I can Imagine no possessions, no need for greed or hunger, a brotherhood of man. That is a lot of imagining.
There is no ideal in morals. Morality is all about the practical everyday business of keeping the people in your group alive and healthy. Sometimes this requires one to do things to those outside the group, which would not be allowed within the group. Every once in a while someone comes along and asks, "Wouldn't it be lovely if we were all one big group?"
In an ideal world, I can imagine that happening.