If saying something is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ doesn’t in any way relate to what people should do, then it’s about as meaningful as saying an action is ‘zonk’ or ‘crinkey’

What would that actually mean though, for an act to be ‘intrinsically good’? I understood a good act as meaning an act that is virtuous to do, but then surely what is virtuous is determined by personal values.

Maths is objective, yes. But maths is an ‘is’, while morality is an ‘ought’. And you can’t get an ought from an is without subjective values. And while maths is objective, any individual’s understanding of it may be inaccurate.

What would it mean that it’s ‘inherently’ wrong, though? Where would the judgement come from? And if it does come from somewhere (eg evolutionary psychology, a god), doesn’t that make it just the subjective morality of that thing?

In the same way as free will, both that and subjective morality are things I have never been able to see any good definition of. And something that isn’t well defined can’t exist.

Can you define objective morality for me please? What exactly would the world look like if there was objective morality?

Exactly. All experience is subjective, and so is morality.

An appeal to majority, authority, or tradition (your comment might be all 3) does not supersede my own reason and experience.

The fact that I can observe people have different moralities.

What do you even mean? Good and evil are moral terms, and the world doesn’t even have objective morality, let alone ‘is’ it. Making a meme where your position is in the ‘right’, doesn’t make it true or even sensical.