The answer to your question depends on which 'camp' within ethics you think is correct. One major theory within ethics is consequentialism. This school claims that the moral worth of an action is determined entirely by the action's consequences. Obviously, the consequentialist theory will agree with your intuition that it is better for one person to die than for five. In contrast, the deontological approach to ethics claims that there is something within the nature of actions in themselves that makes actions right or wrong. For example, Immanuel Kant taught that we ought to always act in such a way as to treat people as an end in themselves and never as a mere means. According to this way of thinking, some actions are against objective human dignity, so we should never 'use people'...even if we expect it to bring about a greater good. So we should never kill an innocent person, even if failing to do so would bring about multiple deaths. Kant would also deny that you can 'really know' the results of...

First, we need to clarify your terms. Moral relativism typically claims that: there is no objectively morally correct thing to do independent of the individual actor's values or the specific culture's values. In contrast, utilitarianism claims that: there is an objective morally correct thing to do, whatever action ultimately brings about the greatest happiness for all involved. Therefore, you cannot be both a relativist and a utilitarian. I suspect when you claim that you are a moral relativist, what you really mean is something like: there is no type of action that is inherently wrong in and of itself (which is a claim compatible with utilitarianism). The claim that there are universal, objective human rights would be incompatible with utilitarianism. However, you could claim something a little less sweeping: that given the current state of humanity, set of rights 'x' would likely bring about the greatest good for all involved on the most reliable basis that we can predict. Of course, the problem...

If I'm reading the question correctly, it assumes that if morals aren't empirically verifiable, then they must be based upon emotion rather than reason. Frankly, I don't know why anyone would make that assumption. There are lots of important claims that aren't based upon emotion, but that ultimately aren't empirically verifiable. For example, the claim that 'if morals aren't empirically verifiable, then they must be based upon emotion rather than reason' is not empirically verifiable but does not seem based upon any emotion. If any of the great modern philosophers had the 'last word' on ethics (and a vast range of other issues) it would have probably been Kant who wrote after Hume and rejected many of his views (including this one).

The current debates about embryonic stem cell research concern whether federal funding should be spent upon it, not on whether such research is banned in the USA. Similarly, federal funding for abortion is more controversial than its legality.

I disagree with one of your stated assumptions and one of your implied assumptions. First, I certainly don't want to die before many of the beloved people around me (and I insist that I still love them quite a bit). However, I disagree with this stated assumption, because I disagree with your implicit assumption that when we should wish to die ought to be motivated mainly by a desire for self or others to avoid the sadness of grieving. It seems to me that we should be more motivated by a desire to avoid (and for others to avoid) the 'bad' of death. I would prefer not to die at all but since that doesn't seem to be an option, it seems wisest to accept the natural pattern of this world: to die after your beloved parents, before your children and grandchildren, and in roughly the same time span as siblings, friends, and spouses. It is also easier to accept mortality (your own and others) if you don't think this is the end, as many excellent philosophers such as Plato, Aquinas, Kant, and Kierkegaard...

An important ethical principle advanced by Kant was 'ought implies can.' So long as you are doing what you can to carry out your moral convictions, you have no reason to feel guilty (though perhaps, you still have reason to feel sorrow). It is legitimate to try to persuade others to embrace your view within reason, but remember that damaging your relationships with your family over this issue or getting yourself thrown into jail would only introduce another evil into the universe. So, perhaps you should do more than you currently are, but I don't think you ought to 'beat yourself up' over things that are outside of your control.

I think this kind of dilemma is rather common and has a fairly straightforward solution. When two people have very diverse interests it is important to learn to sincerely enjoy activities that your significant other enjoys. There's a difference between someone who is willing to 'tolerate' an activity towards which he is indifferent, which is the situation you are describing and someone who sincerely commits himself to discovering what it is about the activity that others find enjoyable. I've found that for most activities one is genuinely neutral towards (as opposed to activities one dislikes), it is possible to cultivate at least some genuine interest.... so my advice is learn to appreciate the significance of moving a football ten yards in four attempts, or the merits of Edward over Jacob, or why wine aged in oak barrels tastes better, etc.

I don't think the reality of the parent's serious illness and reduced lifespan in itself would make it morally wrong to reproduce. After all, there are plenty of children who grow up without ever meeting one of their parents or who lose one or both parents early in life that have a very fulfilling life on the whole. That being said I could imagine circumstances where I would encourage the parent not to reproduce. For example, if that family's specific circumstances would guarantee that the child would end up in utter poverty long-term after the parent's death. I don't think the 'potential harm of denying the other potential parent the chance to have a child' weighs too heavily in the decision. Clearly, you are either putting the future child in a circumstance that is likely to result in his/her overall flourishing or not. Your potential partner's harm of missing the chance to parent is a comparatively lesser matter since there are other ways that he/she might have the opportunity to flourish. ...

One of the most useful relational skills that one can cultivate is the ability to have nuanced moral evaluations of people. Few individuals are complete saints or monsters. Instead most of us are complex and flawed, yet praiseworthy on at least some points. So, I would say that it is wisest to love and respect your parent for his or her good treatment of you, but be outraged at the bad behavior. It takes wisdom to know how to live this attitude out well. The bad behavior may merit some confrontation from you, but you shouldn't simply cut off a relationship with someone who has treated you well.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by 'marketing'. Generally, I appreciate being informed about goods and services that I might be interested in purchasing. However, I hate being manipulated into buying things I don't really want or being misinformed about the products that I am offered. Unfortunately, I would have to say that a lot of 'marketing' these days seems to fall into the second unethical category.