I think there is no absolute good/right or evil/wrong. Rather, its more of a Yin Yang effect. There is a little shred of good in something evil, and a little evil in the purest of intentions.

How one decides what is good or evil, right or wrong, is purely relative to that person/social class/culture/etc. For instance, Sept. 11. To most of the world, it was one of the most evil acts carried out. But, to a minority of people who are sympathetic to bin Laden's cause, they would see it has something good.

There is no simplicity when it comes to humans, we are complex creatures.

we are?

So you're telling me that any act could be considered good if the person has the mindset to believe it is so? Sodomizing a child could be considered a good thing if viewed the right way? Taking in an orphan and raising him or her as one's own could be evil? If you take a while to examine your own feelings on the matter, I think you'll find that sort of moral relativity to be counterintuitive.

morality is entirely dependant on the society one lives in... in certain cultures (like arkansas) incest is okay... in others (like boston) you have to make love through a hole in a sheet...

Ha ha. Seriously though, you don't believe that there are any acts whatsoever which are inherently wrong, which would strike at the heart of a human being no matter what culture they were raised in?

I consider the origin of morality to be empathy, it can both be found naturally in children and also be a trait that adults have to be taught. Its not created from culture or other influences, those sources just enforce a morality accepted by the majority of people or aid the individual in forming their own moral codes.
Absolute and relitive morality is often just a matter of perception. A good example is that someone could say murder is only a relivant moral concern and explain that in situations where the preservation of your own life or other`s lives places you in a kill or be killed situation then that is morally just. But another could just say that murder without justification is a absolute moral wrong.

I think of things as constructive and destructive.

"To speak of right and wrong per se makes no sense at all. No act of violence, rape, exploitation, destruction, is intrinsically unjust, since life itself is violent, rapacious, exploitative, and destructive, and cannot be conceived otherwise."
-Friedrich Nietzsche

I agree that the origin of morality is empathy.

I'd like to agree, but using the same scenario, to have empathy for a terrorist is to be filled with the same culturally motivated anger, therefore you cannot be objective. Sometimes being a strong empath can muddy the waters of morality. Empathy gives insight and tolerance but does not often assist with good or bad.

Well..having empathy for only one side wouldn`t be objective. I dont think of empathy as any personal creation of feeling from reading others emotions or whatever, just understanding of other`s feelings.

Yeah, I suppose so. I tend to get a little passionate and can go to extremes sometimes. Empathy is probably one of my main character traits, my main reason for not judging people, only their actions. What actions are motivated by is not the issue but whether those actions have positive or negative repercussions.

Often it's hidden motivations that inspire actions, so what the person is feeling can be distorted and irrational.

Hard to find any motivation to feel empathy for a paedophile.