I was taught to think of it (and many other questions) using the Ying-Yang symbol. No matter how you bisect it, there is some level of back and white in each side.

Everything is relative. Proof of this is in how much things change in time whether it is opinions or morals. Look at bathing suits in 1900 to get my drift. Your "moral compass" is set by the societal norms that you live with and these all change. This has nothing to do with gods of any kind.

Basically you might ask if right and left are relative or absolute. The correct answer is “maybe”.

Rational thinking doesn't promote any such thing. The answer to almost ANY question dealing with morality is almost never A or B. There is always context to consider.
Yes, and torturing someone (aside from the fact it often doesn't work) would be a very GOOD thing if it stopped a war.

In my opinion, rational thinking can tell you what is beneficial / not beneficial to some entity. Morality being attached in forms of right and wrong is in essence not rational to me. In majority of the cases right and wrong merely end up as opinions of the dominant group / sect in a society.

As far as absolutes go, I would prefer to classify them as facts and theories substantiated by proof / lack of proof that should be facts.

Ideas of morality are highly dependent on the culture. Bribery is often seen as wrong by people in the US, while it is seen as an amoral issue by many Chinese. I think your logic is faulty in how you premised the question.
To help get around this, when I teach my business ethics class section about individual morality, I usually go to Rawl's veil of ignorance or Levinas' Faceless other ideas. Neither is perfect, but it helps them understand how the idea of morality is relative based on a lot of factors (as well as other points I try to have them think about).

When it comes to how and what we perceive, Tadin said, “there’s a lot going on behind the scenes that we just take for granted.”

No human (nor his/her/other's brain) is completely rational.We make mistakes in judgment often. I guess our brains do the best they can, considering they are locked inside a bony skull and can only consider and react to impulses sent from the outside. We have to wonder if our brains give us a true (or real) picture of reality. I guess, everything our brain perceives is compared to a picture similar or identical to the same object (or thought) so that our consciousness and present us with the correct perception as soon as possible. We often react to perceived danger without any conscious thought. Again, managing our brain is like a rider on an elephant's back. As long as the elephant allows us to control it everything goes fine. A lot of useful works can be done. However, when the elephant decides to go it's own way, we are powerless.

It is not something that is plain black and white. Every situation is unique and has it's own set of variables to consider.

Depends on the relative

You don't give enough options. Sam Harris, for example, argues for a humanistic ethics based on well-being that is neither absolute nor entirely relative.

It is all subjective. You'll have to read Kant and Hegel for a start and get into epistemological and ontological methods of questioning. From there, positivist or relativist?
In the end, nothing is certain.

Assuming the question is really about morality (whether something is "morally right" or "morally wrong" ), yes, it is absolutely relative.

Right and wrong are abstract terms. Both terms are too broad to adequately define human behavior or pretty much anything else.

it is relative by necessity; what lions do, humans have decided humans may not do. that's it in a nutshell. we form communities and sometimes even cultures, and within them we make rules so that we don't destroy outselves (look how well THAT's working out!) the more universal the rule (do not murder, leave your neighbor's wallet and spouse alone, don't impregnate or be impregnated by your close relatives) the more we consider it an immutable right or (to prevent or correct a) wrong. a lot of it is hardwired; the species does want to survive, no matter how hard some of us try to work against survival. so at the most basic level it is relative to what and who we are and whether or not we participate in the survival of the species. on a more conscious level, we make decisions and agreements about right and wrong that (hopefully) benefit us both personally and as a species, and maybe even as coresidents of the planet.

g

As to answer the war torture question, according to the saying "All is fair in love and war". It would be considered right in that view to torture someone in cases of war. If some war laws said,"only thumb war is ever to be allowed and when a person crys "mercy " the thumb war must be declared over. Then, it would be considered wrong to torture someones thumb after they cried mercy.

Right is relative to what is left.

There is more than one way to skin a cat. Some ways may be better. Or moreso RIGHT.

The law says "...you must totally stop at stop sign." if you do not totally stop then according to the law you are a criminal and in the wrong and could be given a ticket and pay fines, fees and Court cost that supports the Masonic lodge secret religion racist devil worship government guaranteed income health care, retirement and housing budget for governmental employees salaries.

If you turn a screw the WRONG way you would not get it to screw in, so only one right way to turn a screw.

So, there are things that are relative and some things absolute. It could very well depend on the circumstances then and there existing.

Depends on the subject so I think relative. Lets say you are referring to moral right and wrong, then it is always relative. If you are talking about scientific right or wrong like in math, then right and wrong is then fixed, since 2 plus 2 only has one right answer.

I had a friend that didn't believe capital punishment was moral. Then his mother was raped and killed by a young man. After that, my friend believed in capital punishment. I guess, there are many things that happen where we cannot say for sure if it is right or wrong. Consider letting illegal immigrants enter our country. Does everyone have the right to live in the country of their choosing? I wonder if our country, or any country, will ever start deporting the families of mass murderers? That might be a way to help deter shooters.

PadriacM, below mentioned Rawl's Veil. The idea seems simple enough. Of course, being totally impartial during decision making is usually very difficult. I guess we often form committees to help make a good decisions. Seems that the adage "two heads are better than one" may be useful. Moral issues most often are not clear-cut and the seemingly correct decision is a judgment of a committee. Science is often not much help.