Good day from a new member.

[robvalue]

You're welcome

No, I firmly hold that "objective morality" is either incoherent or useless. Morality is, as far as I'm concerned, a value judgement, not a measurement. For morality to be objective, there would have to be some fixed way of measuring it. That would require some sort of formulaic evaluation of all the factors involved in either a particular action someone takes, or of a society as a whole.

Someone could set such a formula, but then that would just be their own subjective morality made "universal".

The way I look at it, we set basic goals, then look to how we can best achieve those goals. Obviously personal freedom is a goal, but only a fairly recent one regarding the full populace. If two people, or two societies, can't agree on the goals, then for one to declare themselves "better" is pointless. They will likely both consider themselves better, because they measure their morality using their own... morality. It's circular.

Even when goals are agreed, how you go about them, and how you balance various factors will always be up for debate.

So I look back at slavery, and I can say that if personal freedom is an important factor then we are objectively better now than we were then. Of course, I do consider it an important factor. But ultimately, it's still an opinion. Also, morality is an individual thing. A society is not a monolith. So even if one was to agree, on some level, that society is better than it was, it all breaks down at the individual level. Everyone has their own differing opinions ultimately. All we have are overall shifts of societal norms towards or away from certain goals, or methods of achieving those goals.

God solves nothing. His rules, if he sets them, are just his subjective morality imposed on us. They could only be objective if they applied regardless of his opinion, and as such would have no input from him.