Morality in a Perfect World

I don't accept your view that perfection is wholly subjective.

I understand that but the mere fact that we disagree does certainly seem to indicate subjectivity. 

There have been many disagreements over science's history. It doesn't mean they aren't arguing over interpretation of facts. Quantum mechanics still has about 7 interpretations.

You and I mean different things when we say perfection. If there is some objective perfect then it is clearly unknowable and an unknown thing or concept is indistinguishable from a nonexistent one. Perfection is, by any measurable metric, subjective. 

Perfect circle, perfect square... geometry.

Those are mathematical distinctions. A perfectly shaped human is not, I suspect, what you mean by perfect human. In any case perfection as described mathematically would seem to be unattainable and so is only a hypothetical model. 

Now please try again but without falsely conflating the meaning of two different usages of the word.

The concept we're discussing is perfection. Yes, a perfect shape versus a perfect person are two different subjects but they both still refer to perfection. Perfect shapes are *theoretical* (not hypothetical) and derive from geometry. Scientists, architects, mathematicians, etc use geometry everyday. A person can have varying degrees of beauty, intellect, power, moral character, health, etc which all factor into the concept of them as a "perfect person."

Moral truths, likewise, are theoretical.

I believe you are using the colloquial form of the word theoretical. If so you are muddying the waters. If not I think we may disagree about this. Also there are no moral truths only moral judgements. 

I await your case that there are no moral truths.

Allow me to soften my language regarding this claim. There is no apparent objective moral standard and if one exists it is indistinguishable from subjective. That being the case I reject the idea of objective morals unless they can be demonstrated. 

Skepticism is the default position. If something cannot be demonstrated it can and should be dismissed. 

What makes it seem like there are no objective moral standards? It's apparent to me that the opposite is true.

It's okay to "reject" something until it is shown to be true if by "reject" you mean merely non-acceptant.

The default position is mere non-belief.

Skepticism, non-belief, fail to accept, reject. You seem to be making a distinction without a difference. 

I don't find people arguing over whether punishing innocent people is immoral or not. Mere disagreement isn't indicative that there's no fact of the matter.

You can hold any position and be skeptical of it.

Reject implies falsehood.

But what constitutes innoscent? The word just means not having done wrong. Who is and is not innocent is what we actually debate. Innocence is prescriptive.

What you consider to be the threshold for having committed an offense is subjective but does that does not entail that the statement is subjective.

To answer the question out of context: Morality and perfection can coexist. Something like the completion of Hegel's system, the universal Idea being recognized and othered and then coming back to itself. Granted, in a system like that, it would be impossible to not know why what you're doing is right.

More related to your post: the premise of the question requires you accept the existence of morality. A world can't be perfect as you've defined without morality; there would be no "right" decisions to make. You've said about as much, and your way out was to say that a perfect world is not perfectly moral. If not moral, then what does it mean to be perfect, and what does it mean to be right?

Action-guiding precepts: Morality is not just the system of obligations. It includes justifications. We intuit that someone who does a good action selflessly and someone who does a good action because it will benefit them are not morally equivalent, even if the scenario plays out the exact same way and produces the same consequences.
Or, slightly different, morality might include an obligation to have right intentions and you can't just blindly stumble into it.

A perfect world might not need morality in the sense that it doesn't need philosophers agonizing and preachers proselytizing, Whether or not morality exists doesn't depend on whether or not we "need it" telling us what to do, a proposition that itself appears to be a moral claim. By definition, I'm not sure how a world could be "perfect" without morality. And what does it mean for a world to exist with or without morality? Unless there are particles out there in the world giving morality force, what differentiates a moral and an amoral world?