Indeed, that is the nature of my argument. I do not claim that morals are abstractly absolutely good. That is your claim. I don't believe, for example, that you can demonstrate that it's good for the universe that it be infected by humans, however, I think the human moral community is a reasonably good choice of a moral community to work for and be commited to to secure things to me and posterity that seem valuable.
I merely claim that morals are likely to profit the moral community that adheres to them. The morals of a gang of thugs, not to rat each other out when captured are, for example, not disqualified. Not a very sensible long-term choice of a moral community, but there are no provable transcendental restrictions on what can be a moral community, only common sense restrictions.
YOu can't logically make any moral truth claims that are outside of your own community, so I will thank you to stop using words like "universe" - you contradict yourself when you do. Any morals outside of your community ARE TRUE AND RIGHT in your system, so spare me your contradictory prattle.