Is there an objective wrong?; on a cosmic philosophical scale I'd say no, there's no 'true' right or wrong, only relative judgement and interpretation. Also, there can be situations where there's no reason to do good, and even then what dictates whether there's a 'real' reason?
You give life value, although it holds no true value, nothing really does. Value is only given to it, as if like currency. And who knows, maybe the babies are masochists.
The way I approach this just makes discussion run in circles and really redundant, philosophy can be dumb sometimes.
I believe there is objective wrong.
The word cosmos is derived from a Greek homophone that roughly means "the people." Interestingly, in modern English, we use the word cosmos to describe literally everything, sometimes beyond the scope of a single universe (i.e. the multiverse or spiritual realms). The use of two similar words to describe humanity and existence its self lends credence to the idea that humans conflate themselves with the universe.
Is this so nonsensical? I don't think so. It's nice to marvel at the stars and think about how massive all existence actually is. We often humble ourselves with the idea that there is a bigger world beyond us. But converting a beautiful vista into your worldview is impractical, and useless aside from the fleeting, novel awe a beautiful vista provides. In real life, beautiful stars are like a video game's sky box - Yeah, those thousand and one purple specs on the horizon sure are mesmerizing, but the only purple mass you should actively concern yourself with is the banshee directly behind you, which is ready to splatter your ass - Although stars are inconceivably large in our mind's eye when we try to imagine passing by them in space, at face value they're no bigger than a grain of sand, and in terms of importance, they're not more significant to us than sand either. Humans are very important to humans!
You give life value, although it holds no true value, nothing really does.
What could true value possibly look like? This train of thought will eventually lead us to the question, "What is the meaning to life?" If we follow that question to its logical conclusion, we'd realize that it's an empty question, absurd.
We need a common platform to evaluate matters from. What is the most common platform among humans? Our nature of course. By nature, I mean our shared biological workings. If you accept this as a suitable objective viewpoint, with a little anthropology, we can see that there are objective evils.
E.g. For the long-term survival of a social species, is killing for greed sustainable? No. If something is always detrimental to the greater entity, then it is conceivably an objective evil.
Also, I don't think objective evils have to be strictly evil. I think objectively evil things can have redeeming qualities, but I won't go off on another tangent right now.