When I (or, I sense, most people on this list) hear the word "morality," we think of a certain kind of emotional stance that people can have: when we express approval or disaproval in a certain way, tadaa, it's morality. If the historical process works in such a way that you feel revulsion when children are bombed and maybe a little schadenfreude when the stock market takes a hit, and if you take actions based on these feelings, then you're indulging in morality.
Whereas I feel Carrol takes a realist line: any "morality" that's just the sum of affects isn't possibly worthy of the name; morality must consist in obedience to principles derived from pure reason or perhaps divine revelation. And since we don't have anything that seems to meet that criteria morality is hokum.
Carrol, am I correct in calling you an error theorist? I don't want to misrepresent you (or Ollman, or anyone else!)