That doesn't address that being subjective in determination has no necessary connection to not being objective in existence.I'm not a Christian. If I were theist I wouldn't be under the assumption that a theistic god was omnipotent, omnipresent or omnibenevilent, or there even was such a thing as perfection or inerrance. Or that I'm playing the same sport they made the rules for.
Hailing back to act of creation not being moral supremacy in my view. Just like if the creator of straws said I shouldn't use them to blow paint across a canvas to achieve a look because that's not what they were intended for, I would say 'so what?' and move on. Intended use by a creator does not equal objective use. They use would still be subject to *my* intended application, not theirs, thus subjective. And I view morality in similar vein.
That's when you would, not the grounds for doing so.Broadly speaking, at the point of protecting others from harm.
Why? What grants you moral authority to make these decisions?Because we should.
More often than I like and less than I'd prefer.Wtf? Are you high?
But that's neither here nor there. If rights are properly adjudicated and imposed on the principle of 'I think we should', then we have no recourse for judgement against places and people who have done just that in a manner we object to.