In response to what you wrote, I think the end to morality is making the individual happy. It is strictly subjective because happiness could only be determined by your internal measurements that noone but the individual himself is aware of.
So what makes you happy is moral, what doesnt is immoral.
Obviously we all want to be left alone to conduct our pursuit of happiness, so we need a code of behavior to grant us all the peace to do so. This is where we come by the conventional behavioral prescriptions. Such a system shall have little to do with morality itself, its only tie to ethics is one in support of our value concerning personal peace.
So what this means is, there is a law concerning not running through a red light, I follow this not because my personal values tell me there is something good about not running a red light, but because my personal values tell me I like my peace. In order to have my peace, I need to ensure that others do so as well. Hence, I abide by laws that strive to create order in society.
Such laws are indespensable to morality as without order in society the individual's pursuit of peace shall be difficult if not impossible. However, when such stipulations are connected to personal values peace by peace, namely when we say that we have a rule that eating meat or killing dear is moral or immoral in itself, conventional 'morality' becomes tyrannous and imposing. This is because we all have different ideas of what makes us happy and what does not. Since our inner beings are more archetypal than ectypal, or in other words, there is more to who we are based on our inner unconscious tendencies than our external influences. In other words, it is difficult to shape the individual into what the external protocol may wish for him to be without expecting the protestation from his inner life. Hence, since there are so many kinds of inner beings, the chances are if we try to make an external code of ethic which is fitting for all, this shall be detrimental to most. Our code of ethic may apply to one set of individuals, yet shall be thoroughly disagreeable to many others. Secondly, even to that aforementioned group it is unlikely to be favorable as the inner life cannot be translated externally with exactitude. In other words, externally we can lay down but a few rigid maxims in regards to how we should behave, however, this is much too impoverished to depict the many elements of the inner life which are essential to soundness of one's inner being.
So, as for conventional 'morals' whatever conduces to maximization of maximization of autonomy of the individual is desirable.
As for the subjective essence of morality, I shall not comment on, as only the examination of the individual's inner being could put us in the position to start an inquiry into the matter.