Yes. In the same way that the eradication of poverty and inequity could be considered right. These issues are not a result of subjectivism but the social and political environment in which these situations arose. Similar to the problems with the value judgements you mentioned is the way in which these views at the time were seen to be grounded in objectivity - the belief in the existence of objective morality can be just as, if not more, destructive when compared with subjective morality.

Whence are the objective standards of morality you are referring to? There is no objective principle of morality, to improvise one for the sake of objective morality would create many more problems than any subjective valuation.

This is not how subjectivity works. You’re equating subjectivity to non-existence. Right and wrong can and in almost all cases do still exist to the moral subjectivist, they just don’t refer to an objective principle of reality. Subjective morals are derived from the subject’s interpretation of morality, any of these world ending philosophies would be considered wrong by the vast majority of people and so would be intersubjectively wrong.

I don’t need to refute the nature of biological needs. To claim we have biological needs is a descriptive claim, to claim we ought to act in accordance with them is a normative claim. To derive a normative claim from a descriptive claim is inherently illogical.

Time for the open question argument. Let’s use, for example, ‘maintaining one’s health’ as our biological need. For this to be reducible to good, asking ‘is maintaining one’s health good?’ has to be a closed question (the answer must be yes in all instances - as it would be to ask ‘is good good?’) The answer is yes sometimes - most of the time, even - but what about when sacrificing your food so that your child can eat? (or any other instance of an answer which is anything but ‘objectively yes’).

Therefore, although biological needs are universally experienced and usually what we navigate towards, they are far from objectively moral.

Is ought moment

Arguments like Sam Harris’ have been refuted for decades in many ways. One is the is-ought gap - principally, you cannot logically derive what you ought to do (moral actions) from what is (biology, pleasure, happiness, etc).

Other notable refutations of objectivist morality like these are the Open Question Argument, and the Naturalistic Fallacy. So to answer your question, as with every debate in philosophy neither side has ‘solved it’, but the subjectivist side has never really had a problem entirely refuting arguments from the objectivist side