Rather than go through it again, I just want to ask you, so that I have a clear idea of where you're at, if you would say that there is a way morality can be understood based on how we as individuals experience things, rather than on how it affects the functioning of society. In other words, is there a subjective basis for morality at all, or is it all objective to you? I had to ask, because you seemed to be agreeing with me, while disagreeing at the same time.
Ah, it's neither fish nor fowl to me, really. In one sense, the experiences we have are subjective and arbitrary - you experience pain, but how you feel about pain is largely arbitrary. So in that sense, the foundation is subjective. But from there, if we accept that as the foundation, then objective reason allows us to develop a full and complete system of morality.
Make sense? Think of it this way - suppose tomorrow everyone decided that pain wasn't unpleasant, and stopped feeling that pain was a bad thing. In fact, suppose everyone decided that pain was a good thing, and they enjoyed experiencing pain. If that were to happen, would it still make sense to describe inflicting pain upon others as "wrong"?
The thing itself doesn't change, only people's subjective perception of it. But we simply accept those subjective perceptions and proceed as objectively as we can from there.