Moral relativism in flux

Earlier today, I was speaking with a co-worker about an interview I saw recently with Michael Schiavo, the callous and insensitive individual who did not even have the decency to permit the parents of his dearly departed (now) ex-wife to be present at a proper funeral. Death by starvation and dehydration one day, the next day an autopsy, the following day a cremation, hands wiped clean of the situation, thank you very much. But, I digress.

We're going back a few weeks now, but some of you may recall the discussion on CNN's Larry King Live in which Mr. King was debating the pros and cons of Mr. Schiavo's termination of hydration/nutrition for his then wife. I found this interview to be extremely disturbing, but not for only the obvious reasons. Michael Schiavo was telling Larry King about his reasons for his decisions in the case. Mr. King responded by asking him (I may be paraphrasing somewhat, but you get the gist) "what if your morals are different from my morals?" Now I have a question for Larry King which I believe someone should challenge him on. Is it really possible for each and every one of us (all 6 billion people in the world) to have a different opinion on what moral codes, if any, are significant and worthy of adherence? Who is really to say that my morals are right and yours are wrong if it is dependent upon all of us to decide amongst ourselves what is really right or wrong? Stand to Reason has a wonderful essay on this topic here. Picture this: you walk into a new restaurant; we'll name it The Cafeteria of Morals. You may select those morals that you like, that fit into your current lifestyle, and you may even decline to acknowledge the sheer existence of those morals which you find to be distasteful or merely inconvenient. Let's just call it your moral buffet, as it were, in which you can select a la carte those societal rules you wish to follow. What would be your criterion for selecting certain moral ideals? For that matter, why even bother to select any moral code to follow? Let's just stop and think how utterly preposterous is the notion of moral relativism implied by Larry King's question. If we can all pick and choose our own morals that are contrived by men and women, why bother having any morals? Shouldn't morals be something that stands for something greater? Something that may have been initiated by (do I dare say) God? I would urge anyone reading this to be thoughtful in their musings regarding whether or not our society's morally relativistic leanings are truly the road down which we desire for us, our sons, and our daughters to travel. Moral relativism is a sickness permeating the very foundations of our society. If left unabated, the prognosis for our very existence may be in doubt. After all, how are we as a people to have any foundation for steering young people in the correct direction if there are no guidelines or consensus for what constitutes right and wrong or good and evil?