No. Let me argue from the the last of your post forward.
"Are there any nations or societies on earth that permit the intentional killing of another human being if not for self defense?"
Of course there are. Have you seen the stoning videos of Islamic women?
Of course there are. Have you noticed that thirty-three states (I think) have a death penalty?
Of course there are. Have you noticed how many recently paroled violent criminals never reported to their parole officers? Do you think all of them went AWAL? Or do you think victims' relatives sometimes decided their morality includes something that's no where near self-defense?
We haven't even figured out a universal moral code for the most egregious crime of murder.
Certainly a conversation about morality OFTEN comes to a conversation about particular moral codes, but morality, as a word, isn't defined by the particular. The Islamist who stones a woman for infidelity has a moral argument girding his act. A relative of a victim has a moral girding for her act of killing a perpetrator long after the threat.
I'm in no way saying that morality doesn't have an agreed upon meaning. I'm a bit baffled; I took great pains to make a distinction between the term "morality" and some personal devotion to a set of right or wrong actions. It seems pretty obvious to me that two moral people can have different moral responses to the same stimuli.