You've made a lot of claims in your comment that I once accepted and now oppose. Know that I've been a nihilist of sorts myself when I was much younger; I believe that from this state, I've made a step forward rather than shield myself from it, and I'll explain why I believe so after I'll reply to some of your claims. Perhaps you will understand my intent before that point.

My reference to the world "caring" is not a reference to it being intelligent, thinking or feeling.

Yes, it is. By assigning the trait of caring to the world you've anthropomized it - related it to a human being, unacceptably so in this case. To say that it doesn't care is wrong not because the world isn't less human than you might desire it too but because it's not human at all. From my experience, this assumption of yours - that the world could care - is the root of your problems with tackling the issue of morality not existing, because instead of accepting the notion of the world not caring, you battle against it, which means that you desire it to be what you don't believe it to be (whether on its own or because you don't wish to change your views on such a fundamental issue due to conformity).

Understanding the sense of right and wrong that doesn't actually exist?

Do ideas not exist? It's easy to say that non-material things don't "exist" because they aren't something you can touch or feel with your skin, and yet you yourself don't deny the existence of such ideas as communism and capitalism. Ideas have their own form of existence, separate from tangible space. To say they don't exist is to deny them, and you don't so far. You note further that:

we do not condem them for right and wrong, we condem them for what we feel is right and wrong.

Yes. Precisely. Morality is a mental construct, and a necessary one at that. Why? It keeps society together, and it allows for a more synergetic (or less troublesome for the whole) coexistence. Why would we go for it? Cooperation produces lowers required input of effort in order to produce something, be it a solution to the problem, a car or a defense of the fort. Doing it together is less intense on your strength than doing it on your own, to say nothing of time required.

You're a social creature because you're a human being. To deny that is to deceit yourself willingly. People go mad from isolation - it's a proven medical fact, and I hope that you don't doubt scientific method. Therefore, we need (not should, not ought to, but need) to coexist. To coexist in a meaningful (constructive) manner with anyone requires a set of rules for all of the coexisters to follow in order to not disrupt each other's operations as well as to join forces to tackle a problem either at all (because otherwise it's too difficult) or easier (because it's not too difficult but requires too much strength).

It's the shit we teach to five year olds because they can't understand a more nuanced view of what should and should not be done.

You have to start somewhere.

How many people are willing to hang others for their sense of how the world ought to be.

It sounds to me that this is alike to what you're doing to rd95. He told you in the most concise manner I've seen so far that what we do matters, which is a very gratifying notion in a world where we have to work hard to get what we want, and you fight against it because it opposes your beliefs.

There are no absolute norms - that is, norms that come from without, from the world itself. Even what we consider absolute is relative to our most basic urges and desire: to survive and to procreate, - as well as to things that we get to once the lower-tier desires are sufficiently satisfied. Indeed, we derive what we think is best from our experience, and on certain things, our experiences are the same. This is how things work, and you fighting it will not move you closer to a more satisfying experience with living.

Let me give you an example. Suppose you kill someone. Good on you: you're a strong human being, having overpowered someone. Suppose you kill someone else, this time more capable of defending themselves. Cool: you're very strong! But then, someone kills you. You lose everything you have ever considered to be yours; you cease to exist entirely: no blackness, no white light - your mind dies with your body. Is it a pleasurable experience? is it desirable? My hope is that you reply with "no" to either and we'll move on. So, consider what those people you've killed feel about the issue: do you think they'll approve you killing them? Some will: some find it simpler to cease to exist rather than face the overwhelming problems they experience; most, however, won't: not only do you lose bad things - pain, suffering, hunger, thirst, inability - but all the good things - joy, laughter, endorsement, achievement, ability, friendship, love, the life you've crafted for yourself, accolades of any sort...

Therefore, killing is wrong. You don't want to be killed, so don't kill - otherwise, what's to stop others from killing you? You've disregarded an important social rule - why do you think you'd still be eligable to be protect by it?

Same is with other rules. Stealing is wrong because you wouldn't want to lose your things to a person who hasn't repayed you in any proper manner and, more importantly, without your consent, which is a blatant disregard of one of your basic functions - personal autonomy. Without personal autonomy, each of us feels terrible in many ways which I won't list because I'm becoming tired from writing this.

You see, my thinking is that your issue isn't about world not having the rules embedded. I think that your issue is with having no base for the rules and that you haven't considered that being human and living in a functioning society might be such a base. I feel like you want to justify their existence badly, but in your views on the subject, you haven't made the simple yet elusive next step: "If the world doesn't provide me with morality, I shall derive my own from myself" - or, more widely, "If the world doesn't care for me, I shall".

I assume that, despite your outer cynicism, you enjoy living and achieving things. You'd like to live in a world that makes sense to you, and while things don't, you feel unsettled, because it bothers you to no end. Don't wait for things to turn in your favor: do what you have to do to make them turn. This is the base for every achievement; what varies is the effort necessary and the actions you take. To be guided by morality or not is up to you, but I believe to have listed enough compelling reasons to argue for following. And please, don't act defensive. The more we fight against something, the sooner we should stop and consider. I'd appreciate it if you listen instead of building up your wall of cynicism even higher.