I think, No.  There is a subjective moral standard possessed by intelligent beings, though, it's more commonly referred to as a 'conscience'.

Yes, he/she can. But I think what you meant is more along the lines of what I would phrase 'should' and individual act against another who they view as subjectively wrong, and the point being that any act is only subjectively right or wrong, without some absolute precept to call on. 

You want me to claim an absolute standard or agree to pure moral relativity, right? As I said above, I think there is an absolute standard, the standard by which any human being can do absolutely anything they are capable of. I also believe that there exists an absolute moral standard, which is seemingly unattainable, but exists anyhow, which is that acting against anyone in any circumstance is immoral.

Now I know this sounds a little bit like an argument for Calvinistic Total depravity, since we humans seemingly can't possibly be moral in this world, but it's not in the sense that although I sort of agree with his basis I think Calvinism itself is one big ugly non-sequitur.

edit: I just noticed that my last paragraph can be construed to be a contradiction of the first paragraph because I haven't mentioned that I don't mix morality/immorality with right/wrong. That is, I don't see immoral as 'morally wrong' I don't see these as the same thing. Immoral refers to a perfect standard, the kind one would hold a omni-being God necessarily to, moral rightness or wrongness refers alternately to a set with finite parameters, such as, for example, the lifetime of a human being. A sense of absolute morality is just not calculable in such a limited scope.

Yep, I noticed that and edited, my bad, sorry.

I've gotta agree w/Eloise. There's no absolute objective Right/Wrong. They're nice concepts to have, and conceptually, we'd like there to be absolutely correct versions... but in the end, morality is governed by the interaction of the individual within society, which is what informs and develops our conscience.

You are correct.. after looking up the definition.. immoral is not the logical opposite of moral.  Suprising.  So, as such, my contention isn't accurate..

Fail for me.

Nevertheless, I'm still confused by E.'s post, and I think some of the questions still reflect my confusion with it, e.g., the calculable/applicable issue.

Okay, this is a good enough place to start. First I would say that, yes, moral doesn't require a God, but absolute morality definitely requires a perfect standard, and if you were to then postulate a God, that would be the standard to which you'd most likely hold it.

So God is not necessary to the question of absolute morality, only some concept of perfection which you could, if you chose to, then embody into an entity And it is not necessary to do so) is.

eeeexcellent... (finger tapping, Mr Burns style)

Yes, that's right, but I'm not asserting it quite so nakedly as you might be supposing. If morality is a measure of acting against some one, then one can only ascertain morality within the limits of their capacity to act. As with the above example, a human life involves a finite ability to act within a finite time. So the moral sense of the human must be constructed within those limits. Absolute morality may or may not be unattainable in those limits, doesn't matter, because it is at least beyond calculating by the human given the differences in magnitude between a human life and all life.

It may be applicable, but it would still mean nothing without the capacity to be perfectly moral and thus apply it.

Would mean nothing to an individual person.. for instance, a person could never rightly say "I act in accordance with this absolute standard of morality"--if your standard were applied--but, that is not to say that it is still completely without meaning, IMO.  Obviously we are talking about it... therefore it has some meaning.