Humanity and Morality

Immanuel Kant argued that moral requirements are based on a standard of rationality, thus immorality is thereby irrational. He believed all humans have within them the capacity for moral behavior.
I am somewhat still confused about what morality and ethics are and if there is a universal morality?

The term “morality” can be used either
1. descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or,
a. some other group, such as a religion, or
b. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

So morality is either defined by society as a whole, and can thus vary from group to group or it refers to something put forward by all rational persons.
Does this mean there must be some kind of universal morality that accounts for all of humanity?
If human beings are moral and ethical why do they treat each other so unequally? If a creature was completely moral or ethical inequality of any kind would be impossible. Maybe human nature is completely amoral and we are just pretending something we are not?

Morality is an individual phenomenon but it only works or makes sense in a social context. When humans form into social groups, there is something that naturally happens by virtue of human psychology and the motivations for forming groups. Different societies have different beliefs which form the basis of their morality.
To me it seems like most morals arise out of real-life situations. Religions and philosophers looking for universal moral truths are just trying to fix morality. Why does it need to be an all or nothing sort of thing? Can there not be human morality and ethics of a personal or conditional type? Must we claim that if a human idea or belief or value is not UNIVERSAL and proven objectively, that it does not exist?
Individual people have ethics and moral codes. Groups also have codes, defined by the agreements between members of the group on such things. Morality is never unchanging, permanent or able to be “proven” somehow. I don’t think there is a universal moral law. Ethics is not “in nature”. It is human; it is in us. However, this does not make it any less real.

Humans are formed by their biology and by their social interactions and motivated by a mixture of ego, malice and compassion. When people who believe in morals and ethics say that everybody else must behave in a way that is considered moral or ethical, they make such statements by believing there has to be some independent existence that everybody must conform under. That definitely sounds like either Kantians or Christians – ironically both of a dying breed in Germany where Kant was from.

But even Kantians and Christians see such systems only as an ideal and not the real day to day behavior of ordinary people – they express how they would like people to behave.
I look at morality and ethics as a sort of socio-religious form of thinking.

Like religion beyond belief there is no hardcore evidence for believing in morals and ethics other than that it makes those who believe in them feel "good" about themselves and the world around them. This is where the belief in god is very similar to the belief in morals and ethics. Also there is no proof to what makes a specific action “right” whereas another “wrong.”

I am really surprised that postmodern humans seek to salvage morals and ethics which are based on theological forms of thinking.