But right and wrong is not absolute, therefore neither is morality.
And now we're back to where we started.
Prove it. You're making the assertion that right and wrong aren't absolute and morality is relative. It's not self-evident. You need to make an actual argument why they aren't absolute.
Would it have been right to kill hitler the baby if you have the forknolege of what he would do as a grown man?
It's a dilemma. But there's no reason it can't have a right answer. I'm not going to tell you what it is, for it's a massive argument of nature versus nurture and our right to take a technically innocent life for future events and so on and I wouldn't claim to know the answer... but for it to prove that morality isn't absolute, you also need to prove that there is no correct answer to that question.
So put it this way. Suppose I hypothetically said - No. It would not have been right to kill baby Hitler. Absolute morality forbids it.
Is there any reason why that answer's unacceptable?
Sorry, lemme be more specific: 1/2, and 4 are not necessarily exclusive. We also seem to be mixing both personal identity and social responsibility. I would prefer to keep it to personal identity, justice and responsibility open up a whole new can of worms. On the otherhand I cannot argue that responsibility and identity are exclusive.
How can your identity be physical, defined by your body, and simultaneously non-physical, in the form of your memories? Suppose I take Person A. I then make a perfect clone of Person A, called Person B. Person B has all the memories of Person A. I then wipe Person A's memories, making them an amnesiac. This amnesiac A will be called Person C.
Who is Person A? B or C? Both? Neither? If 1/ or 2/ is our model, C is. If we go with 4/, B is A. If both are two, B
is C... but can we not see that these are two different people? If neither, then what happened to A? Did we kill A? Do we think that identity depends on both spatio-temporal continuity and continuity of memory, and so A was killed the moment I wiped his memory, making B and C completely different people?
And just to throw that social justice wrench into the works, what if A had committed a crime and the police break down my door after this operation is complete. B and C are put on trial for what A did. Who, if anyone, can we punish? More importantly, why (or why not) can we punish that person?
Tricky, no?
Everything I observe in the world works along cycles, why should my logic not?
Because logic does not work like that. You proceed from premises to conclusions. Circular logic is invalid because there's no progression. It's a self-justifying assumption. What logic is supposed to do is work from given assumptions, premises, to their own necessary implications, conclusions.
I ask you what gives you your self-identity - what are you, basically? If you say 'I am what I perceive myself to be', you are, in effect, saying 'I am I', which is glib but pointless. To explain by analogy, were you to ask me what a Zanthoid is, and I said 'a Zanthoid is a Zanthoid', or 'a Zanthoid is what a Zanthoid perceives itself to be'... you'd still have no idea what a Zanthoid is. I cannot define a Zanthoid in terms of its own Zanthoid-ness. I could, more accurately, say that a Zanthoid is a word I just made up, though.
Here is something I think to be absolute: Preception is reality.
A bit of an idealist, are you?