This is all wrong
Because this image does not spell out the claim that it is making, I will do my best here:
Morality is something objective and universal that exists even when humans are not around.
[implied] The laws that humans make are false, and stand opposed to the truth.
The first problem we have is a metaphysical one–namely, that it is difficult for us to imagine what morality would mean without having any humans involved. (In philosophy, this is sometimes called "the argument from weirdness.") Our understanding of morality is based on the existence of other minds, along with the needs we have to sustain ourselves. We hold others accountable for their actions based on their ability to learn, and their ability to understand the ways that the people around them have their own thoughts and feelings.
Suppose for now that humans are the only animal on earth that has any kind of morality. Now let's imagine that in another part of the universe, a form of life has emerged that has the capacity for moral reasoning. That morality will look very different from our own, because they will have different needs, and think in different ways. Perhaps they have a hive-like, intuitive understanding of other people's desires. The ways in which this species could be different from us are inconceivable. (Yes, I know what that word means.) That means their morality is also going to be different, in ways that we cannot conceive of.
Now we have two different systems of morality for two different situations, which would appear to be moral relativism. But these moral systems could also be in tune with universal morality. There could be universal rules that look different in practice, from context to context. The reference to "moral relativism" here is meant to be some kind of bugbear, here to teach your kids to get high and deny Christ, but determining how we apply moral principles to real-life situations involves determining what distinguishes two very similar scenarios apart from each other.
One more issue that I have with the idea of a universal morality is that the only rules we can come up with for ourselves are ones that fall into the column on the right. We learn more over time about how to act morally, and we also update what we do based on changing circumstances in our lives. The best of us are approaching morality with the assumption that no matter how certain we are, there is a chance we could be wrong. The truth that we are getting closer to does not have to exist any further than human beings, or the planet itself. We can still have an objective morality, but it doesn't have to look as weird as something that continues to exist in a universe incapable of morality.
Finally, one last note about the author's claim that people comply with human laws only out of a fear of punishment. A person who makes this claim is a person capable of doing anything they want, as long as they think they won't get caught. Meanwhile, a great many of us have a genuine desire not to cause unnecessary harm or discomfort to other people in the world. It doesn't matter who knows, because you know the truth. You think you can keep it a secret, but it will gnaw at you, like the sound of a beating heart coming from the body you have buried underneath your living room floor. (Please don't call the cops, I'm talking about Poe.)
PS: do not confuse "Natural Laws" of physics with "Natural Laws" of morality.