Not that I want to get embroiled in this conversation, but I don’t believe morals are “personal” as you’ve stated. Either there is some objective moral standard to which we are all subject regardless of whether we know it or can articulate it, or there are no morals at all, only preferences that can be discarded when opinions differ. If this second model is true, it makes no real difference to whether invasion or a “gobble” are immoral and comparing the two makes no sense because it’s a personal determination without consequence. I realize that it is en vogue to view morals as “personal”, but then why do we discuss anything at all? Why do we always seem to be appealing to some unwritten rule that we expect others to understand if no such rule exists?

Please note that I’m not arguing in this post that my own understanding of morality is correct (though of course I believe that it is), only that I don’t believe morals are “personal”.