Philosphy. Where is the “eternal law vs. postive law.”

43666431177957-363220667385-545557145477Subjectivists argue that there is not an underlying standard of judgement than the individual's perception and ideas in themselves. In subjectivism, whoever instigates a genocide can be considered moral if his feelings of certain societal matters motivated him or her. Which means there are no standards at all in subjectivism. While natural law theorists believe that human beings have in-born values that guide their actions [NLT do not believe we have “in born values”. We have the ability to reason and thereby learn what is right vs. wrong.] which has nothing to do with the governance systems, saying that there is nothing more to ethics than an opinion from a subjectivist would be countered by natural law theorist based on their argument that ethics or morals precede from an innate aspect [NLT are not innatists] which hence cannot be altered in whichever way, the natural law theorists would say that morality is a standard gauge it cannot be a variable and thinking as the subjectivist means that regardless of whatever your opinion, perception and idea are, that is morality. The NML theorist would argue that morality is standard everywhere which means it is unchangeable and universal all which are characteristics which critique the subjectivist's argument that your opinion is just ideal enough to define a right from wrong.
Where is the “eternal law vs. postive law.”
2204720673735009721856477000016700501651...