Absolute morality is impossible for us mortal humans. In fact, absolute morality may be impossible even for God. Even worse, absolute morality may also be relative. That's 3 conjectures that I have to explain so let me start with the middle.

"Absolute morality may be impossible even for God." I've heard more than once that God must exist because otherwise we couldn't have absolute morality. I contend that not only doesn't God factor in to the argument but that God can't be an absolutist. If God is by definition omni-everything then certainly God must be the example of absolute morality. But God must also be the example of absolute im-morality otherwise God is not omni-everything. Or to put it another way who are we to change the definition of God to suit us? If God is truly the be-all and end-all then it holds that God has elements of good and bad, morality and immorality. Therefore God can not be an example of absolute morality. And, to use the Torah, as an example we have the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" - plain, simple, absolute. Yet God kills (Egyptians and parting of the waters) and commands others to kill (Israelites wiping out tribes to conquer their land) so God's word and actions conflict. So much for absolute morality for God.

"Absolute morality is impossible for us mortal humans" - too wordy. Simply put, we can't be moral absolutists. If we were we'd likely die or go crazy from paranoia. Consider "Thou shalt not kill." That's pretty absolute and damn near impossible to live up to. You'd end up living off of dairy products and nuts - no fresh-picked fruits or vegetables. No fresh meat. - and be afraid to walk outside for fear of crushing ants. Ants? Ants?!? Yes, ants. They're living and the law states "Thou shalt not kill" without any qualifiers. It means all living things are sacred and protected, including ants. It means anything else - any qualifiers - are us humans interfering with the commandment of God. Do you think you could go through a day without killing anything? Very doubtful. And consider this scenario: you're being attacked unto death. Do you kill your attacker? The absolute moralist must say no, let the attacker kill you. But this is against our nature to defend ourselves. So right there the absolute law must be amended and once amended becomes subject to other amendments and thus a relative morality.

"Absolute morality may also be relative." Above I stated "Thou shalt not kill" as an absolute moral example. But someone else could come up and claim that it's not a valid example at all. They could claim that "Thou shalt not steal" is an absolute moral law. In other words what defines an example of absolute morality is itself a relative judgement.

We are, I believe, all relative moralists. Some might strive to become absolutists - yay, for them - but by our very human nature we tend towards relativism.

What I'm wrestling with is "the more moral a person the less freedom they have." To have absolute freedom you'd need a complete lack of a morality, which doesn't sound right. Certainly to have complete freedom you'd need a lack of oversight - no neighbors, no government, no religion - which then implies that morality would be at ones discretion. A corollary of this is that the greater the morality and/or the fewer liberties for an individual requires a greater oversight by a government or religion. And we see this with our own government as the Right tries to assume more power, impose "morality", and restrict liberties, we see our Government has grown to enforce those positions. Homeland Security has many meanings and purposes.