If a society devotes it's people and resources to an action, whether a war or helping a nation out in a disaster, it should always be a moral action otherwise it should not be undertaken.

As for whose morality we should abide by, the proper question would be 'what' morality, and the answer is the only objective morality that is true, a morality which holds life as it's fundamental standard, but not just existence, but a proper kind of existence relevant to the nature of the being striving to live.  For us, that morality is Life qua man, or all the actions that are proper to human beings within the catagory of being human.  It is popular in today philosophical climate to espouse 'subjective' morality, to claim there is no such thing as true right and wrong, that it is only a matter of people's opinions.  This is fallacious. 

If the word 'objective' means anything significant (i.e. it is not just verbal masturbation) than there is only one objective moral standard, life.  Because to ask the question "what is moral?" is to ask the question "what ought I do with my life and in my life" a dead entity can not ask itself what is the standard of morality. Subsequently, no logical answer to the question of 'what is the objective standard for morality' can be anything other than life, because anything else automatically and eventually leads to death - and in death one can not ask what is the standard of one's actions in life.  It makes the question illogical and meaningless. Objective Morality also does not mean that no one can choose to believe something else is the standard, you can believe whatever you want is the standard of morality, but if a group or person holds anything other than life as it's standard, reality will remind them what is the objective standard of morality (the code of rules to govern your actions in life)
by ultimately killing them.

Life qua man is the 'objective' standard for life just as the objective standard for the mass of an electron is 9.11 E-31kg  Often, people use 'objective' to mean something everyone automatically believes or is supernaturally compelled to believe, this is usually what religious thought tries to create as an 'objective' moral code, but anything 'objective' that is only knowable to one single person that divined it through mystical inspiration is not objective at all.  Imaging a physicist declaring the objective mass of an electron only from some naval gazing and chicken bone, but for some reason even scientifically inclined intellectuals still think 'objective morality' is something everyone must believe.  In this regard, religious philosophical inclinations have stolen a rational scientific concept and hijacked it. The scientific and only useful meaning to objective is anything that is available to any one through empirical examination and logical analysis.