now you're just blatantly contradicting yourself. if right and wrong are relative to the situation, then a situation wouldn't lead you to ignore right and wrong, it would lead you to change your definitions of right and wrong to fit the situation. if, on the other hand, a situation would lead you to ignore right and wrong they must be absolutes which transcend situation.

I agree it becomes harder for people to behave ethically in desperate situations. That's true whatever moral compass you use.

I do give it higher significance than my personal desires, like I said earlier we're talking about the cornerstone of human civilization here. Without empathy and the ethic of reciprocity that stems from it, there would be no civilization. I think that's a pretty big deal.

Oh, please. You're connecting two ideas that don't belong together. Right and wrong would still exist in the situation I found myself in, but I would be less inclined to respect them, being instead guided by primitive impulses. The point wasn't that I'd suddenly think it okay to kill people, but necessary. I worded it wrong, perhaps. But I did say that I'd ignore right and wrong, not that it'd be okay to start murdering my friends.

So now right and wrong exsist but you would just ignore it if you had to in a certain situation and then change your ideas on what is right and wrong to justify it?

and it does come down to that fact that we dont agree on weather or not morality is absolute....

No, I'd never change my ideas of right and wrong. If such an incredible situation was to arise, I'd ignore them. Call it temporary insanity.

Then you would be acting against your morals? but you dontmind? So why have morals?

the problem with what you're doing is that you're just shifting your justification around because you realize you're standing on quicksand. if the ultimate justification for morality is society, what is the ultimate justification for society? why is it better that we all live together in an organized, peaceful fashion? the only reason is that we fear the alternative, that we fear chaos and the possibility for our own destruction. so then morality is based on fear, the fear that if we abandon it society will collapse. but for society to collapse every member of society would have to abandon morality, and since most people cling to it desperately that's not likely to happen. so how does this train of thought lead us to justifying personal morality? it can't...

if they never change then how are they not absolutes?

So you're "shifting around" comment wasn't directed at me? For some reason I thought so.

My ideas of right and wrong in that particular situation wouldn't change, but my primitive impulse to ignore them would take over. And no, I'm not saying that any time I act "badly" I'm simply ignoring right and wrong. We're talking about situations which evoke primitive responses.

ha! no answer then ay?

Guess you didn't even read the post you just quoted.

Absolutely, and it's not a matter of not minding. They're impulses. If the situation was desperate enough for my primitive instincts to override my moral compass, it wouldn't matter if Jesus personally asked me not to steal from the little boy. After all, this is completely hypothetical. Sure, I'd probably regret making Jesus sad, but I couldn't help it.

Why have morals? Because in the cases that I'm not driven by my primal urges, it helps me decide what's right and wrong to do.