Aren't those laws? Doesn't morality have to do with sexual conduct, deception and debauchery (personal conduct)in every society?
Morality is the set of principles that determines the behaviour of rational, conscious agents to be either right or wrong/good or bad. As such, it is not limited to sexual conduct, deception, and debauchery (although it is not immediately clear to me why debauchery, defined as "excessive indulgence in sensual pleasures," could ever be considered immoral so long as it does no harm to non-consenting, non-involved individuals. It would surely be irresponsible in many, if not most or even all, cases, but I can't see the moral aspect of it.)
Law is quite similar in this that it's defined as the set of a nation's rules which imposes upon its citizens a regulation of their (the citizens') actions. However, it's also different because we do not legislate based on morality. While it may be immoral to cheat on one's spouse, it is not illegal. When it comes to things like murder, rape, and theft, they happen to be both immoral and illegal.
So, well- being for who?
In a most general sense, when we talk about morality, we are concerned with the well-being of conscious creatures with the primary focus on human beings. But which human beings? We are of course concerned with the well-being of human beings who are not the agents of the given actions which are considered either moral or immoral. So for example, let's say that while you're walking by a lake, you see that there is a woman who fell into the lake, cannot swim, and is drowning. While it is not your moral obligation to save her (because you are not required to risk your own life for her sake), if you decided to help her and succeeded in doing so, that would be considered a moral action. (Moral right and moral obligation aren't the same thing. Something can be moral, but it doesn't have to be a moral obligation.)
But let's reverse the roles. Let's say that you are the one who fell into the lake, and that you are the one who cannot swim. As a result, you're drowning. If you succeeded in somehow saving yourself, would that be morally right of you? It would be morally neutral because you're saving yourself. It would be amoral. You're the agent. When deciding the moral value of an action, we always exclude the agent.
So let's connect that to the example you gave earlier:
Also, exploitation of human beings all over the world so that countries like the US, can prosper.
There are three parties here which we need to list. Firstly, there are the people who are being exploited. Let's say they are the black slaves in the US. Then, there are the people who are exploiting them. Let's call them the agents. Lastly, there are the people for whose sake the agents are exploiting the black slaves. Let's called them the public. So whose well-being do we care about in order to determine whether the exploitation of black slaves is moral or immoral? As a general rule, we exclude the agents. So now we're facing a moral dilemma. Would we be morally justified to exploit the black slaves for the sake of the public?
There are a lot of arguments that can be made here, but in general, this would have a lot to do with the axiom of bodily autonomy that I've already mentioned before. People have a right to bodily autonomy, but they do not have the right to infringe upon other people's right to bodily autonomy unless they have specifically denied themselves this right by knowingly attempting to diminish the well-being of other people. (There are arguments that do in fact demonstrate objectively that we shouldn't have this right by looking at the consequences of not having this right vs. having it, but I've already written a lot, and it's getting late...)
Edit: Oh, and about this:
If morality exists, I want to see proof.
You said that you've read all of the posts on this thread already. Have you actually? Because I dealt with that question already. It depends on what kind of morality you're talking about. Does it exist in the sense that rational agents have a concept of morality? Well, sure, of course it does exist in this sense. We know that there is such a thing as morality because people hold moral values. Or are you talking about subjective vs. objective vs. absolute morality, and which one exists? Then that's also something I already answered. (Subjective foundation which is well-being + the objective fact that consequences of our actions affect our well-being. It's subjective in the rigorously philosophical sense, like medicine is subjective, but it is objective "for all intents and purposes" because everyone seems to agree that well-being is the foundation of morality—i.e., whenever they talk about morality, they refer to well-being.)