I
InindoHero
Guest
Original poster
From a purely philosophical standpoint, let's say that a someone, a divine lawmaker, did in fact create our moral code. Wouldn't we then simply be following HIS subjective morality which he then imposes upon us?
Put aside what you may believe about religion, and just consider that if our moral code of ethics is imposed or enforced upon us by the individual who created them, and we follow because we trust the lawmaker or we agree that the code of ethics is a good one, that makes them inherently subjective. It doesn't matter who the creator is.
I assert, and I'm being serious, that all morality is subjective, and relative. There is no such thing as a certain act being universally bad, just as there is no such thing as an act being universally good. The classic example of this is that while we regard the act of killing to be bad, we acknowledge that it's justified if the killing of one prevents the killing of many (like if we could go back in time to kill Hitler, for example). If morality were objective and concrete, this would be paradoxical - under that set of rules, killing is universally bad and therefore the assassin who kills Hitler is just as much of a monster as Hitler is.
My point is, the universe just is, regardless who or what created us, and the ideas of "good" and "bad" are purely and entirely subjective notions. Whether you believe they came from a divine source or we created them, they are subjective. That's not to say that they're bad - they are designed to, in an ideal world, serve our best interests.
If God is well, God, well then, he's perfect to begin with.