A classic question, presented over 2,400 years ago.
Assuming that "moral rightness & wrongness" simply means that which is & is not in accordance with the will of God, then:
Hold on. So...that assumes :
a) God exists, and They do not contradict Each Other (say, Jesus vs Hades); The assumption goes that there is only one God (and other gods and their values were subsequently false); I contrasted Jesus with other gods because no matter how good / evil they are, they have different godly behaviors and values instilled and values desired from its followers; in other words, values that were deemed moral. The statement seemed to assume that there are only one True God, or if they acknowledge polytheism and/or different religions, the contradicting moral values were ignored.
b) God has only / all good intentions / embodiments of human traits; a.k.a, God is kind, God is wise, and never jealous, petty, vengeful, etc, etc....
c) Religion(s) is/are fruits of God, and not human. As is the case with a), it assumes the idea of One True Religion (and even Denomination, so for what it's worth the Westboro can be moral and everything else, immoral.), or if they acknowledge different religions, the contradicting values and beliefs and what constituted morality was ignored.
So I cannot argue otherwise under the reasoning that most religions are made, perpetuated, spread around, and upheld by humans. Okay.
I have to be honest those assumptions makes things very slanted..but let's try working in that constraint.
The idea of morality, as opposed to, say, infallible truth, or numerical equations, are less rigid in nature.
Let's say that from the outside they worked to create and upheld community peace and harmony; as time goes, people evolve and find new ways to create, preserve, and destroy them. From the inside, however, what's the basis of morality? It's even more subjective; one wishes to do good to others. Others feel it's the right, fair, just, and honorable thing to do and follow; the other believes in one thing because another person / Deity told them to.
Just from the perspective of purpose alone, there might be a lot of nuance that gives some possibility to one, the other, or both.
Oh, I'm taking the perspective that morality =/= the religion. If you want to argue about how Christianity is oppressive or how Greek religion promotes pederasty or lalala, yes, I hear you, but we're talking about extreme ideals, not the interpretation of a manifestation.
1) Is something moral solely because God wills it to be moral, or
This kind of perspective is more God-based; God wills it, so it be. On one hand, this level of perspective seem more definite. On the other hand, that perspective is also a tad......defeatist. Or rather, against free-will.
I think it's possible that something is moral because some higher being wills it to be moral. It could be argued that God chose things as moral for--something. Now my perspective is biased here, as someone living with a 'standard' kind of morality, but most things deemed moral are also things that are beneficial, whether personally or socially.
But human minds have conjured situations where things that can be moral in one hand (wisdom, seeking truth, following one's on belief) can also be immoral and opposing this particular choice at the same time (defying God, rage against the heavens..). When the moral trait is aimed towards The Creator(s) of the rule, is it moral, or immoral ? (think His Dark Materials)
That's my only question atm.
2) does God will something to be moral because it is moral?
This kind of perspective is more-- human-related. Notice that a lot of what is/was deemed moral are things that are good for humanity as a group, and sometimes humanity as an individual..but either way, they are good to humans, not animals or plants or the Earth or something.
I cannot delve into this deeper because we're talking about innate traits of morality within something, and for that we have to go within a particular set of morality and that is impossible to do.
