It is more eye-opening to say that A would still be A, but that nothing would be right or wrong if humans didn't exist.
I'd also note that the matter of "A is A" comes to us from Aristotle via Rand and it pertains to reality, not morality.
We can definitely say that reality is an objective absolute because it deals with existents; whereas the concepts of morality, good, and evil are not absolutes because they are not about existents. A rock, for instance, is an existent; but nothing involving morality, good, or evil can be associated with a rock.
Using the rock terminology as a prop ... We can say that good and evil people are existents (absolutes) because people exist; but we cannot say that good and evil rocks are absolutes (existents) because morally classifiable rocks do not exist -- leading us to a conclusion that there is nothing absolute about morality -- with a corollary being that man needs no supernatural assistance in knowing good from evil.
It is that supernatural assistance, by the way, that often leads to hate, murder, mayhem, persecution, or war; leading me to another conclusion -- that those humans preaching hate, murder, mayhem, persecution, or war are self-appointed evil messengers of false gods.
It was Rand's work in epistemology that influenced me in writing this; epistemology being about things like (using chapter names from Rand's book on epistemology) cognition and measurement, concept-formation, abstraction from abstractions, concepts of consciousness, definitions, axiomatic concepts, the cognitive role of concepts, consciousness and identity. She writes in there (Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, pb, pg 47 of 164) that ...
"Epistemology is a science devoted to the discovery of the proper methods of aquiring and validating knowledge. Ethics is a science devoted to the discovery of the proper methods of living one's life. Medicine is a science devoted to the discovery of the proper methods of curing disease. All the applied sciences (i.e.,technology) are sciences devoted to the discovery of methods.
Happy holidays ...
But again: Rand said that her morality was derived from Objective Reality. As is quite obvious from her quote on epistemology, she made no distinction between physics, math, or ethics. Rand would say that there is a set of principles -- as valid and rational as any mathematical proof -- by which we humans are supposed to live. They're objective, and by virtue of that, they exist independently of you, or of me.
The problem is (as you've no doubt tired of being told) Rand's attempt to derive those principles from Objective Reality is irrational and self-contradictory.
It is that supernatural assistance, by the way, that often leads to hate, murder, mayhem, persecution, or war; leading me to another conclusion -- that those humans preaching hate, murder, mayhem, persecution, or war are self-appointed evil messengers of false gods.
Rather than blaming it "supernatural assistance" (which I gather you think doesn't exist in the first place) it would be best to blame the people who commit the crimes, wouldn't it?