I believe morality is relative. However, in a certain situation, there may very well be a definite/absolute right or wrong thing to do. But, being finite beings, we can't really know what that would be. We just make a best guess.

I outlined my morality in a previous post, but here it is:

* Something is GOOD to the extent that it increases happiness or decreases suffering
* Something is BAD to the extent that it decreases happiness or increases suffering
* Something is RIGHT/MORAL to the extent that it was intended to do GOOD
* Something is WRONG/IMMORAL to the extent that it was intended to do BAD

Living in a shared reality, what is good to me, may be bad to you. So, in the utilitarian sense, we must somehow estimate the total amount of good or bad in any situation to determine the right thing to do.

Chez's statement about it being wrong to needlessly cause suffering, fits in with my moral precepts. Causing suffering is bad. Needlessly would mean that it was not causing a greater good. Therefore, increasing suffering, while not increasing happiness is bad (and wrong if it's intentional).

I agree with the 2nd poster that even if there are absolute moral codes, we can't know them. And, I have yet to hear any that are universal, unconditional, and apply to any and all situations.