Morality is a human sense that requires context. It's equally as preposterous (as saying good and bad cannot be objective) to say that a wolf killing a deer is bad merely for the presence of death. This goes back to where I said that it is not a stark dichotomy, but a gradient. Yet if someone is, say, beating their dog to death just because, that is wrong and bad as it is senseless, cruel, and of detriment to the life of the dog and the person's view on creatures lesser than them. Plucking the wings off flies leads to experimentally killing frogs leads to drowning cats leads to shoving playmates off high places. Perhaps a bit hyperbolic, yet it is observably damaging to one's psyche and, in turn, those around them.
In contrast, alleviating hardships and struggles is objectively good for that very reason. We see its effects in immediate gratitude, or even in the absence of gratitude but the following effects of that subject thriving, if not for a day. This is as evident as the difference between noon and midnight, midwinter and midsummer. It requires no deep philosophical exploration, no dogma or religion, and no god to shepherd our way to knowing good and evil. We don't need to eat a fruit to see it.
And, in fact, I would argue that religion (particularly Christianity) has hindered objective morality by ascribing it to a deity and a holy book, with which those in power can craft the message to what they want and demonize entire populations of people.
