Well that depends soley on the situation. If the other person means to kill you, or someone else then I would say it would be acceptable to kill in self defense, because the person forfitted his own life by trying to take another persons. of course if you kill someone in self defense, and feel no remorse for said action, you are a bit of a heartless bastard.
No. I'm saying it's nessecary. It's a morally grey situation no matter how you look at it.
Therefore good and evil and right and wrong are subjective to the incident. Yes?
No. The incident allows us to place an objective morality to it. A few lines of text can hardly compare to moral juggling, and split second acting that would be required in any life of death situation so the exact ways things happened are important to judge it's morality.
Obviously they are concepts, but accurate ones.
Edit: protip: When trying to trick me into admiting something wait until i agree with your premise before hitting me with the implactions of my agreement.
I like how you accept morally grey as the norm, while denying the fact that there is no set standard of morality. x3
Listen what you are saying is "Most things are brown, so Red And Blue must not exist!" While I am saying most things are brown, but sometimes they're red, or blue, or black. The Majority is not the everything, and what you see at one time does not mean thats all their ever is. just because it's night now doesn't mean it wont be day soon. just because killing someone in self defense is NOT evil doesn't mean killing someone cause they have blue eyes is also not evil.
Accurate to what standard?
I don't need to "trick" you into anything when it's simple fact to begin with.
It's not a fact. it's nothing like a fact. It was an incorrect assumption that used a single moral quandry as proof that morals don't exist. it's illogical.