I'll add in: There really is no right and wrong, there are degrees of acceptibility.
I wanted to touch on this statement, also, because it delves into the issue of language. If something exists somewhere on a scale of acceptability, are you suggesting that there is an objective slider, here? If we were to replace "wrong" with "unacceptable" and "right" with "acceptable," have we really done anything except use different words to say the same thing?
If you mean that acceptability is relative, which I suspect you do, then how can we make moral decisions? There must be some
objective truth buried beneath all of the semantics - Kant would say that it is the Categorical Imperative. There are many things I disagree with Kant on (such as the idea that lying is never morally permissible), but the Categorical Imperative seems to basically be right: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." It's a statement that requires some philosophical thought to truly digest, and I would recommend that anyone interested in ethics read Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals
for a deeper understanding.
Morality is not a simple thing. It is complex and difficult and there are many mistakes to be made along the road of moral reasoning, but that hardly means that it isn't a worthwhile journey. Relativism is dangerous. As long as we all say "everyone is right," nothing can be truly accomplished. There is no world in which everyone agrees with everyone else; if there were, Thomas More would never have had to write Utopia
. Disagreement over moral issues is what allows us to interact with the world and with each other - without discourse that considers certain truths objective, we can take no action. We can't move forward.