So, if your your own MA - others must be too.

In ethical theory, anyone with the capacity to make moral decisions is a moral agent.

Which makes me think that morality is subjective. What do you do when someone crosses your morality standard and they dont think it is wrong? Who becomes a judge of right and wrong?

Morality is subjective in the sense that intrinsic meaning does not exist. However we can agree to an objective standard of morality, in fact every human society in history has done exactly that.

I’ll steer you towards Alonzo Fyfe’s blog The Atheist Ethicist, toward the work of Peter Singer, towards Socrates, Solon of Athens… if you’re really interested. This is eventually going to be a “high level” conversation, not “Morality and Ethics 101″, and we should pursue it somewhere other than David’s blog.

Give me a day or so to kick a post up, and I’ll invite you over to my blog, if you’d like.

What Hitler did was clearly wrong, we all know and agree. That some people disagree/d just means that not everyone will agree with what’s right; doesn’t make right any less right. The standard then:

what benefits humanity = good,
what detracts from human welfare = bad

When conflicts arise, e.g. short term vs. long term benefit; the good of the few vs. the good of the many; the relative importance of certain “goods”, i.e. which ones we sacrifice in striving for others, etc. we humans, whether theists or atheists, are still burdened with the task of figuring it out.
Whether you’re a Chrisitan reasoning from scriptural principles in order to apply them to an unforseen circumstance or a secular ethicist figuring out a coherent philosophy, there WILL BE debate about what’s right and wrong. As a non-believer, I’m OK with that. Like anything else that impacts human life, I believe WE are the ones who have the responsibility to figure it all out. We make mistakes, we grow, we learn.

When I look at the morality of the Old Testament conquest of Canaan, I see, not a nascent morality, but an aberrant one. I do not trust major sections of the Bible to be my moral guide, and I believe I stand on solid ground in rejecting those sections. If believers are honest they will admit that they, themselves, neglect, or tacitly reject, much of the teaching of the NT and virtually ALL of the OT, save those commandments that have been common to every civillization in recorded history.
The above is my moral standard. I believe morality can be logically demonstrated to be preferrable through reasoning and even through economics, to be superior to immorality. While on an individual level, the moral thing to do will not always be personally optimal, e.g. stealing and getting away scot-free, the efficacy of the principles at large in society should convince most citizens to cooperate. And that’s what we see!
Contrary to the implicit presumption in many theist arguments, society is already composed of individuals “doing what they think is best” and NOT by the power of some invisible, benevolent force. We cooperate because most of us recognize that it’s for the best. There’s also the added pressure of prison for those who need more convincing; the odds are high that lots of immoral things will be done TO you in there!

Having mentioned the negatives of the Bible I will say that my personal morality is largely summed up by the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you’d have them do unto you. To the extent I fail to live up to this, I am a moral failure. To the extent I live up to it, I am a moral success. No god will ever convince a person who doesn’t care about morality already, that he should behave differently. When he’s ready to change, he may “find” god, but the change really came from within, first, IMhumbleO.

That may be true for me - as you say, but what about the one that holds themselves as a moral agent?

But that is exactly the way all societies have been since there has been societies. Rules (laws) are put in place to govern society, and people then decide if they want to follow the rules or not. Most decide to follow, to some degree, most of the rules.
Very similar to with Christianity– Christians decide which biblical rules they will follow. They ignore many Old Testament rules, thankful that their minister (denomination) has decided that they are no longer under those rules (animal sacrifice, dietary, punishment, etc) but others cling to many OT rules (tithing, dress, Sabbath, etc). So, the fact that Christians can’t agree on what moral codes to follow is if anything, evidence that they are their own moral agents, each and every one.

So, it would appear that your dominoe analogy is actually working against you.