But thought is also a biological process. Thus, according to your "so-on" argument, thought is then by consequence dictated by the laws of physics and as point-of-view is thought, then point of view is then dictated by consequence the laws of physics. Thus, either the laws of physics are subjective or point of view is objective.
Now you are fast approaching determinism territory, and while I consider myself at least partially a determinist, that does have other consequences if it is to be considered in this context.
The age-old questions in this regard would be whether it makes sense to punish criminals if their behavior was pre-determined, and similar, if indeed, there is no such thing as free will.
I've written more extensively on my thoughts about free will here;
Random thoughts about Science and the World - Do we have free will? if you are interested.
However, there is also the concept of emergence and emergent behavior, of which human consciousness is usually considered to an example (
Emergence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).
If we are to find that while in principle our minds work in a deterministic way, but that in practice it is no way to figure out that determinism to our satisfaction, does it then make sense to treat people and human behavior as if it was deterministic?
Also, since the resulting emergent morality would be connected to a subject, i.e. a human, wouldn't that make that person's morality subjective, even if the laws of physics led to that emergent behavior?
I'm not avoiding your argument here, but I do think there are more factors that need to be taken into consideration.