Our world, precisely. Millions of innocent people suffer all the time. Just because this is a truth does not mean it's wrong. Life's persistence, as you put it, doesn't care for morality. We, humans, like to evade the feeling of suffering, pursue pleasure, and therefore we are apt to think that in no world is the suffering of an innocent person "okay."

"Nothing is intrinsically morally wrong." - Morality is only relevant in the context of a community. Separate the individual from community and morality no longer exists. Therefore, morality is a human construct. Let's face it. SonJnana's statement stirs within the majority of those reading it feelings of discomfort. Just because it doesn't stir me does not make me a person without morals. Morals are self-decided, like I said before. We determine what we consider right and wrong according to our own unique needs.

(Excuse me, I might have repeated what someone has previously said.)

It is objectively morally wrong to kill if we ascribe objectivity to an outer, non-human judge. However, we have no proof of that, no proof of a "God" prescribing to humans objective moral values. Otherwise, it is a collective notion for the suffering of an innocent person to be objectively morally wrong.

Therefore, SonJnana's assertion that morality is self-decided is correct. Killing and stealing are actions that are self-justified, therefore the issue over whether an objective, universal morality exists has been overridden.