Truth.

Here's a thought.
Perhaps the fact that today we have now abolished absolutes of right and wrong is not quite so much the great problem as that the alternative is so subjective that it leads us into directions of utter futility.
We claim that 'morality is relative' which is another way of saying 'Do what you like and the morality - or whatever - can catch up later.'
If 'morality is relative' it simply means that one person's perception will inevitably contradict that of another.
But consider this. If there be conflicting moralities, then that in itself is surely proof that they cannot actually be 'moralities' but only 'mere opinions'.
That contradictory element is the great weakness of their argument.
If there really are so many contradictions - and there are - the whole exercise becomes pointless.
I would maintain that that pointlessness itself shows definitively that there could only ever be a single morality - one which overrides all else - and which brings us back to a rather different starting point!
If you do disagree with my thesis then you will have to try to make some sense of not only a godless universe but will also have to move into the kind of nihilism whose only destination is abject despair.
But of course, that is not what people do in practice. Instead they choose not to think about the issues in any meaningful way.
What kind of moral confusion leads us to a stage where the execution of a murderer is 'evil' yet the butchery of an infant capable of survival outside the womb is 'good'?

Good luck!