Life without a rulebook...I have always been uncomfortable with a set of rules to follow that are inviolable. Inevitably a set of rules will be inadequate to deal with all the nuances and new situations which can arise. The Bible simply doesn't address cloning. Rather than create a set of moral imperatives, I strive to apply love, compassion and intelligence to each situation that produces a moral quandary. Each action is a stand-alone response to circumstances. This avoids hypocrisy when you claim one set of values, and then circumstances force you to act otherwise. Cannibalism? Normally a bad idea. But I'd insist my children eat me if I knew that would improve their survival potential in an extreme situation. Case by case you can sincerely seek the narrow path of optimization of a circumstance. In this framework, Right and Wrong exist within contexts, but not as absolutes. In the context of plenty of food for everyone, human cannibalism is a horrid evil. In the context of immediate starvation, it is a gift of love from one human to another. I don't feel that being a moral relativist in this manner weakens Right and Wrong, or creates justifications for selfish behavior. Instead, I feel this is the responsible usage of the mental faculties we've been given to spread love and compassion as best we can.