Yeah, that's correct. There's also a lot of gray areas where I feel one way, but can easily see the logic from the other side. If you can recognize where someone's coming from, then I think you don't view your morals as 'the best'. Maybe the best for you, but that's something completely different.

Gun control is one that comes to mind almost instantly. I am for gun control because I live in a low crime area, and am not comfortable owning and carrying gun. But I understand my situation isn't representative of everyone else's, and why someone like a convenience store owner would want to bear arms.

Moral absolutists have adapted their morals constantly - every major religions done it. They may not refer to it as adapting, but it's what occurs.

Ok? I acknowledged that my ethics adapt and change with insight. this whole time you've been making sweeping generalizations that don't really apply to me, so maybe human behavior is more complex than you give it credit for.

Groups within species can genetically diverge from eachother and follow different evolutionary paths. Many mechanisms that lead to this have been studied and are being studied and many of them are quite complex. The simplest to understand is when a population of a species becomes geographically isolated from others of its kind. They end up in a different environment, with different mutations and evolution puts them on a different path which causes them to diverge. The Galapagos finches is a famous example of isolated, diverging populations of finches on different islands and is one of the observations that really put Darwin on the trail of evolution.

Species can also differentiate without geographical isolation and many such examples exist as well, but they are often more difficult to understand because they typically require more about knowledge about evolution and other aspects of biology. One relatively simple example of such "sympatric" speciation could be if two different strategies (which are coded for genetically) evolve in a population. Merely to illustrate, let's say you have a species of birds where some birds specialize at eating seeds from pine cones while another eats nuts. Both birds are the same species and can mate, but they still have slightly different beaks, one which has evolved to be more effective at picking pine seeds and another which is good for eating nuts. Now, if two such birds breed, they will have an offspring which is a sort of hybrid between the two strategies. This hybrid will have a sort of intermediate beak which is worse for eating either of the two foods, pine seeds and nuts. So hybrid intermediates fare worse than purists of the two strategies. For this reason, birds from either strategy maximize their fitness by mating only with other purists. They learn to recognize their own kind and try to prevent breeding with members of the other strategy.

Across the ages, the two populations become more distinct from eachother, both genetically, behaviourally, morphologically, and one day they can't produce sexually reproductive offspring. Then, even you would find it hard not to admit that they've evolved into new species. ;)

Yes, he thinks it's fine if other people don't adapt, because he follows his (best) morals of being willing to adapt.

So ideally for tuna it's best if they would be willing to adapt, (even if they don't). In which case, he adapts to them not adapting. So he sticks to his morals.

Because being open to adapting is the perceived best moral stance for Tuna, which is why he thinks it. If he didn't think it was the best moral stance, then he wouldn't consider it to be his.

Speaking of which, a tiger/lion hybrid mated with a lion and resulted in offspring recently. It can be pretty smudgy at times.

BBC News - Siberian zoo breeds the world's first Liliger

Are you speaking for me now?

What's best for me is adapting my beliefs with time. What's best for someone else I am in no position to say, but it seems that most people are best suited taking up morals and beliefs that provide them the most comfort in life, or ones that they find the most logical. Seeing as how none of our minds work the same, it'd be awfully egotistical of me to think I know what's best for everyone. That's not a moral belief of mine by the way, that's an observation. I think people strive to be happy in life, so they would ideally find a belief and set of morals that match the goal.

Not you, everyone.

You are sticking to your moral of being willing to adapt, so your moral includes being accepting of others morals, which for you personally is the best while simultaneously prevents you from thinking everyone should be made to think that.

My point is everyone follows their "best" moral code even if it includes, being selfish, ignoring others, going with the flow, or completely ignoring what others think. They're doing that because it's the best way for them to live their life, which is essentially what morals are.

I can agree in that sense. But my thinking my morals are the best for me is in no way a reflection on the morals of others, and my superiority over theirs. As a creature of nature, I didn't choose these morals (or anything seeing as free will is illusory) so taking pride in something I had no decision in is pretty illogical

Your morals do describe how you react to other's morals too.

But yeah, I was/am being a bit pedantic there for the sake of it.