My views on objective morality

[God of Mr. Hanky]

If we were to never know evil, then we would not be automatons (which would make god guilty of slavery) we would simply live in a world where no evil exists - in other words, there would be no evil just like there are no flying pink unicorns. But the decision, if we are to accept this god, was that god's, and the shitty mess which we're left with is his own.

Humans that were incapable of doing acts for which they have the physical ability to do are as good as automatons. We would be more robotic than human. We would be like a robot who is given arms for carrying things, but programmed to only use those arms in certain ways. Humans have arms, but nothing in our mind or nature restricts what we can do with them, other than physical restrictions. We can use our arms to help, and we can use our arms to hurt. Robots can only do the former.

Sure, we'd still have free choice to do good things, but being mentally incapable of doing bad things whilst physically able to do them would be a massive restriction, and would destroy free will.

Free will only exists when humans can choose whether to do things for which they have the physical ability to do.

Then maybe we wouldn't have arms and legs - some animals do survive without them. Just as humans cannot physically fly like birds, an intelligent sponge cannot walk on land, nor swim through the water like a fish. Better would be the evolution of (whoops, I should say "endowment" for this argument) of more consistent neural hardware among our species which regulates the ego, aka consciense. This argument holds when you believe we were actually designed, and of course more so when we are said to have been created personally by said god. We would theoretically conceptualize evil, but none of us would have the desire to do it. Why should we understand it any deeper when none of that is actually happening?