Morality and denouncement, that is, the use of evaluative language, is not simply a difference between universality, or even objectivity, but rather the case of 'disinterest' - whether one is meant to have that view whether they are affected by it or not.
If everyone cared about and were affected by an action, then they would denounce it, as they have an interest in opposing it. Still, if something is simply wrong, one is meant to oppose it no matter if it affects them or those they care about; then this is morality.
Additionally, suppose 99/100 individuals decided what was adverse to their interests. In that case, it does not make it wrong for that last remaining one, but for the 99, it is certainly an interest to oppose the one. Whether they call it 'right' is not up to me to decide, but if those 99 then wish to alter the circumstances but fail to do so simply because they cannot dare oppose what is wrong, then again, that is morality.
However, while it is true to say that it is contradictory to deride morality and then promote another form of 'power' and hierarchy, i.e., morality is the hierarchy of thoughts - it is not contradictory to understand both as forms of power and to realise that one is affected by the former (morality) in a form of self-deception, or domination and reject its authority.