If it's "the basic question" it's your question, not mine. Put your foot down wherever you want.
Ultimately, your suggestion seems to boil down to an invitation to moral relativism, and ultimately constitutes an argument in favor of nihilism.
You seem to be an advocate of the idea that human liberty, human freedom, is a "freedom from" all natural and rational constraints. The corollary here seems to be that man is "free" to make up his own "rules" as he goes along: There's nothing to "stop him." And of course, if "God is dead," then this becomes possible. (Every Left Progressive thinker knows this.)
But for a man to say that "God is dead" is inefficacious in the act of actually "killing God." Man cannot do that: For "the tail does not wag the dog." (And if it did, the dog would die....)
(Not to mention that would be a patricidal act, were it possible in the first place; which, under the circumstances, it is not.)
At this point, I'd have to say that our interesting conversation is going just exactly nowhere. It seems we can't even get on the same page.... No personal disparagement of you intended by this remark.
I'd like to leave you with a thought, if you'd like to pursue it further. (If not, then not.)
It's the famous quip from Voltaire, which states: "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to create Him."
Do you understand what Voltaire meant by that? If you do, in this day and age, that would make you a rather unusual person....
Thank you ever so much tacticalogic, for your civil, good-faith exchange of views!