Yeah but, that's the point. There are arguments to both of those situations. Like, when the 'hero' is killing the villains, is he really doing the right thing?

Also, in certain situations... Nobody disgraces "the hero" when he viciously murders the person(s) that have in some way hurt the people.

Trying to mind[bad word] me? e.e Morals are practically what society agrees to be the best behavior... For instance, in old days, hunters were considered the best of people because they brought provisions that (Whatever society it was) needed. Nowadays everybody looks down on hunters and the idea of hunting because they are no longer necessary.

It's what pleases society, it paints a good picture on the surface. Living around morals make things straight forward for me, my own morals are formed from my opinions and my own beliefs, it wouldn't make sense to disagree with yourself but then again, these are hardly even called morals.
But, I do agree that morals within society are unhelpful, thanks for the input.

*Where I said "I value the life of an adult human over another," I meant "over a baby's."

This is why I don't like morals. Morals are, in my eyes, just beliefs, and as we all know beliefs are often wrong or distorted based on what you think you know.

I prefer to take a more Ethical Egoism standpoint. I'm number one in my life, and I'll act in whatever way is most likely to end up benefitting me in the long run. Well, that's what I like to think, truth be told I'm extraordinarily bad at organising my time and I often do things I know I'll regret later just because I want to now. BUt even then, I'm doing it because it benefits me at the minute.

Although many would disagree, I think everyone acts in this way as well, but that's another topic.

I don't like morals, because they tie you down and create awkward scenarios like the ones Hull mentioned. Tying yourself down is almost never a good thing in my eyes. I prefer to stay away from making long-term decisions or judgements without thinking heavily about them.

Anyway, my general attitude is to take every scenario as it is, without applying any generalised morals to them. I'm a very logical person, and although I'm not some kind of cold, hard, calculating robot with absolutely no regard for empathy or emotional urges, I try as hard as I can to be one when making difficult decisions.

In some cases, such as a childbirth which would probably be fatal to the mother, then I would choose abortion. I value the life of an adult human over another. I fully believe that under the right circumstances, abortion is totally acceptable. It's not nice that it's necessary, but it IS necessary. The same applies for many other unfortunate necessities.

I've kind of waffled here, the point is that I don't think that morals are good, since they're essentially a set of long-term beliefs about certain topics, and there are always going to be controversial exceptions which arise concerning them.

I suppose I should have been a little more specific, since absolute morals are essentially facts and the complexities are what make it.. well.. complicated. However, the only thing that bothers me is the larger picture.
Absolute morals serve as consequences to the general decision, they are things that are true if one option is to be chosen. For example, as you said, if abortion is done, it would save the mother's life which is self perservation but not doing it would give the unborn child a right to live. To me, this is but fact. It is, as you said, the answers to the complexities and the questions that bother me, when majority opinions state one option as 'the good' and the other as 'the bad'.

I do agree with you, thanks for the input.

Although some morals may seem relative, as society envelops complexities upon them. The truth is that anything considered a "moral" has an absolute foundation (i.e. a "moral truth"). Here's an example that I'm sure will inflame knee-jerk reactions (yay!):

Abortion is a complex issue that contains many moral issues. Based on one's upbringing or influences, these absolute morals may be subconsciously ranked on different levels, forming what is perceived as a relative moral issue. Since this issue can have many varying circumstances, politicians oversimplify it to segregate the populace into voting blocs.

- Abortion not saving the mother's life is premeditated ending of another life.
- Abortion saving the mother's life is self preservation.
- The unborn child has the right to live.
- The mother has the right to live.
- Doctors must help their patients.

None of those facts can be refuted; thus, they are absolute morals. Here is where complexities enter the picture:

- What is the moral decision if the mother is a rape victim?
- What is the moral decision if the unborn child is known to have an extreme medical condition?
- What is the moral cut-off time in gestation for an abortion for medical reasons?
- Has there ever been a medically necessary late-term abortion?
- Why do abortion clinics mainly exist in Black neighborhoods?
- Why isn't parental permission always required for underage girls when it is for any other surgery?
- Should government fund abortions?

Most of these questions will have a response that starts with "I believe...". If any response starts that way, it is not an absolute moral. It is probably an influenced decision, possibly polemic in nature. Anyone who has looked deeply into the issue will have these relative moral views derived from society, friends, family, religious conviction, etc.