I don't disagree, but it's precisely these "moral frameworks" that lead to rigidity, stagnation, in-groups and out-groups, and so on. These "frameworks" externalise/alienate "morality" (from the subjective, emotivist sense) into something sacred, inviolable, that exists above us (absolute morality, "the truth"), and whoever controls this morality controls everyone else. And this goes for not just religion, but every ideological+social "framework" in general; the centralisation/hierarchicalisation of power is inherently susceptible to exploitation and corruption. Even science, for example: consider how "objectivity" has been used as "absolute truth", when what it really is, at least in science, is the union of many subjectivities.

The subjectivity of our experiences is inescapable, by definition, really (what is experience, if not subjective?). So when things are justified with "morality", "duty", "objectivity", oftentimes it is to obscure this fundamental subjectivity, I think; there's this kinda taboo dynamic to it. But if we instead embrace our subjectivities, we can see ideas for what they are and where they come from, and use them as tools for building community (or whatever else we might find useful), without letting them become exploitable backdoors to our minds.