There are three main camps of ethics:
virtue ethics, which I think you’re describing,
consequentialism (which is exclusively about the outcome of actions),
and deontology, which are the moral objectivists.

Deontologists argue that virtues and outcomes don’t matter- that there are universal underlying rules determining what is good or bad.

I believe the answer to ‘what that would actually mean’ is something along the lines of “it just is”

Morality is an ‘is’ if you frame it as good vs evil like the context of this post

The way it was explained to me was as analogous to maths. Idk much mathematical theory, but there are supposedly mathematical truths inherent to the universe, and this argument for morality is similar- that it doesn’t come from somewhere, it just is. I don’t think ‘judgement’ has anything to do with it, bc that would be subjective like you said

something that isn’t well defined can’t exist.

People before gravity was well defined:

I’m an amoralist and a determinist; I only disagree with you on the basis of claiming these things as fact

The world would look the same way it does now with or without objective morality. Objective morality is just the idea that moral truths exist independent of individual beliefs. E.g., that raping babies is an inherently immoral thing regardless of an individual’s feelings about it

Again though, I personally don’t believe this. I just won’t claim to know that there is no objective morality. No one can know that, the same way no one can know that there’s no god, or anything else unfalsifiable

The best argument I’ve heard for it, from a moral philosophy professor and personal friend of mine, is (paraphrasing) “I know for a fact that genocide is inherently wrong, and I’m not open to debating that. It’s just true.”

Lots of hella smart people have made this topic their entire life for literally thousands of years, and the debates are still ongoing. An individual’s observations mean little

Your comment does the same thing you’re critiquing OOP for doing. What gives you the authority to claim as fact that there exists no objective morality?

Edit: tbc, I also don’t believe in object morality, but what I have issue with is the apparent contradiction you’ve made