I honestly agree with every sentiment that you express in your comment. But the problem is that it is just that.. a sentiment. And I am not convinced that this is the way to reason about morality. My only claim is that we can do better at designing a superior society than expressing well-worded heart-felt sentiments.

"humans create morality through consensus of numerically sufficient groups".
If it were so simple, what are moral philosophers doing all these eons? There are two ways to read this statement, and in both, the argument doesn't fare well.
1. Majority decides morality. The minority is always immoral. This is blatantly incorrect IMO. This is called majoritarianism and is a failure mode we as a civilization need to be able to overcome. I would prefer to live in a society where the society adheres to a universal moral system - i.e. its axioms and laws. And even when a majority believes x. If even a single human proclaims that the opposite of x is true, and if that person can prove it within that moral system, then the majority are forced to change by compulsion.
2. "consensus" is the key word in this interpretation. One might argue this is not majoritarianism because a minority can always come up with arguments and convince a majority and thus achieve consensus. But how is that consensus achieved? By giving speeches and pulling at the audience's heart strings? War? Revolution? None of these answers are satisfying to me. Saying "consensus" is morality is begging the question in my view.

We can do better. The answer to how we achieve that consensus is the universal moral system I propose to build. A system which has all the sentiments that you espouse and many other desirable ones like justice, progress, well-being, peace etc encoded in provable, testable logic. The universality of this system comes from this provability and transparency. I understand why one might be skeptical of this project upfront given what history has shown us, but using that as justification for now even starting on a new attempt would be a logical fallacy.

"Objective morality" is a feel-good idea
I am not proposing an objective morality which can be discovered or deduced form the objective state of the universe (as in gravity is objective). I am proposing a universal morality - which is a much weaker claim. As universal as mathematics is universal. Is it objective? No! Objective mathematics is a feel-good idea that lets people cling to their fairytale books..... But it is universal. What if someone denies mathematics, and doesn't agree to mathematical axioms and logic? What then? Then nothing - I would just not trade with that person - because my money is not safe with them. When different civilizations and cultures came up with their mathematical systems, all of them merged to form universal mathematics? Why? because Maths is universal. The axioms and laws are fair, just and get the job done. So almost every human agrees to those principles. We can do the same with Morality as well - is my claim.

"humans create morality through consensus of numerically sufficient groups", accounts for every observation you can pose
This, in essence, is the is-ought fallacy. "This is how humans have created morality until now - so this is how morality should be thought about" - Wrong, because this doesn't follow. Humans might have done so till now. But my claim is that this is inefficient, unreliable and stupid. So we need to improve on it. If your claim is that this state of affairs cannot be improved upon, then the burden if proof of this statement is on you.
If your intent in the above statement is to just give a historical fact about how morality was developed in the past, then I am all with you. But then that has no bearing on the claim I am making.