I've had an ongoing discussion with several friends who, independently, argue that morality is an artifice and claim moral relativism permits a host of what I identify as preventable injustices. I'd love to articulate clearly what I "know" is the distinction between admittedly fluid moral distinctions (Right/Wrong, Good/Bad) and more absolute truths (deliberately harming others is to be avoided/prevented, even absent an organized belief system there are guiding principles for an individual). Am I incapable of defending the notion of an(y) Absolute Good without support from a dogmatic belief system? I may be an atheist and nihilist but just because the Universe is an unjust, entropic whirlpool doesn't mean we can't strive for moments of Grace while we're here.

If, due to unforeseen circumstances, you find love, outside of your committed relationship, what do you do? (This said, obviously you've already gone outside of your "commitment" and remember, things are always more complex than they appear.) The question is this: is your obligation to the commitment or to find your own happiness?

If we consider the norm to be defined as what the majority of people do, can homosexuality be considered normal since it defines behavior that is clearly not what most people indulge in? And would that make homosexuality abnormal? And if it were abnormal, would it be wrong to validate gay marriage?

Do (or should) public figures--professional athletes, politicians, film stars--have a moral obligation to serve as role models for society? Another way to ask this: do public figures have a moral obligation **above and beyond that of a non-public figure** to act in a morally permissible or morally good way? Take, for instance, the professional athlete who abuses his child or the politician who cheats on his or her spouse. Assuming that such actions are prima facie wrong (leaving aside scenarios in which, say, utilitarianism would morally allow or demand such actions), are there any extra moral obligations that a public figure has--or is there any extra moral weight to their actions--just in virtue of being a public figure?

Is it morally wrong for a person with a serious illness and reduced lifespan to reproduce, knowing that in all likelihood the child will have to experience the loss of a parent in adolescence? Assume that the other parent is healthy and prepared for life as a single parent. Can the reproduction be morally justified on the basis of it being less of a wrong to bring into existence a child who will likely lose a parent early on than for one person to deny the other the opportunity of experiencing parenthood? Obviously we are talking about two different recipients of potential harm here but I am focusing on the idea of a general moral wrong. i.e. which is the greater wrong?

Do I have a moral/filial duty to love and respect one of my parents when they have committed a wrongdoing against the other parent? Do I have a moral right to feel outraged at this parent on behalf of the other parent, when this parent has only ever been a good and loving parent to me?

Is marketing fundamentally a bad thing?

All things equal, is it more important to save a young person's life than an old person's?

Is it wrong to want power, just for the sake of power?

I'm religious, but I'm also gay. My church teaches that homosexual relationships are immoral. They say that this is what God has told us and they back it up with scriptures and revelation from God given to my current church leaders. I have a hard time accepting that homosexuality is immoral. I don't see why people should be denied consenting, intimate, long-term relationships. So, here's the question that I need to find a solution to: Should I deny believing what I think is right to comply with what my church leaders say God thinks is moral?