Detached9

I am referring to Immanuel Kant's argument here, that perfect moral ideals can only come from perfect beings. Imperfect beings can not possible conjure up a perfect moral ideal, basically. Am I misunderstanding his argument?

If I do understand his argument, must an objective morality lead us to believe that our sense of right and wrong has been transcended down to us from a perfect being? I disagree for a few reasons, but there probably are more.

1) Does God do an action because it is moral or because everything God does is moral? If God does an action because it is moral, then morality is not dependant on God. If every action God does is moral, then God could very well commit genocide (again) and have that be good, or he could mysteriously make putting on socks wrong to do.

2) Could some of our objective morals (assuming there are any) come from natural means? Either by evolutionary means or by rational means. Maybe our objective moralities are passed on via evolution because they promoted survival? What do I mean by objective morals by rational means? Ayn Rand and Michael Martin are two examples of atheistic philosophers who believe in an objective morality.

3) Most cultures have differing moralities. I don't have much support for this, but I've heard it numerous times. I could be wrong here.

Are my objections sound? Are there any more objections?