Only the material world has absolutes. A pebble is a pebble because it has the characteristics of a pebble. However, moral issues and behaviors have no absolutes. Everything depends on the circumstances and the observer.

right and wrong depends on the objective.
Right is what contributes tot he objective, wrong is what disturbs it.
In general the objective of the societies is to be stable, so right is what stabilizes it, lowering the tensions, minimizing the problems or suppressing any insurgency.

So basically society goes for an average of objectives and make laws and rules based on it.

The modern states organize themselves in constitution that is the document that tells what that society is trying to reach, the constitution is the objective.

The the other bodies of law should be built describing what is right and how to promote it and what is wrong and how to avoid it.

Changing a law is changing or fixing the way to get to an objective, changing constitution is changing the objectives itself, that is why it should be a lot harder to do.

And of course right and wrong can change, technology, environment conditions, peoples conditions can change a lot.

Pre-marital sex was forbidden because it generates kids without a proper family and in a time where women were a resource (yes, wombs generated the next generation of soldiers that would defend the village, there was a need to maximize it) and those kids would be a burden to society and generate harm. Now this is not a problem anymore, so a kid out of marriage is not something that generates instability and the perpetual war state is not a reality anymore and wombs don't need to be workers/soldiers factories.

There is or there was a reason for every rule about right and wrong, the problem is when people start making the rule more important than the reason behind it.

There are absolutes. And there are guidelines. And particular situations require judgment.

Thou shalt not beat children. Completely.

Thou shalt not murder. That's close to absolute.

Thou shalt not kill. Clearly depends on circumstances. Even when after, it is claimed to be deliberate murder.

Example: a women killing a man who has been beating her is a killing, not a murder, no matter the law's definition.

I believe there are moral absolutes, but that it is very difficult to state most of them with sufficient precision to be useful guidelines in practice. One that seems pretty obvious to me is: It is immoral to torture an innocent person to death for fun.

Depends on what you are talking about. Child abuse? Wrong! Telling Aunt Fanny you love her gift? (Ugliest thing you ever saw!) Fine. And etc.

Bad example. Torture is a range of actions from severe physical abuse psychological games. But if torture worked, yes it would be acceptable to end a war. Can anyone seriously say that they'd prefer tens of millions dead to hooking Hitler's scrotum to a battery?

The real world/universe is harsh and unyielding. It is NOT anthropocentric or even bio-centric. What we humans think is right or wrong often comes from our emotions and, therefore are usually wrong. The one character we have that, as we so far know, is above other life forms is our sense of reason. Unfortunately, we have placed this behind our emotions. The universe is far to complex for any subjective answer to this question.

I think maybe it's a faulty premise? There are relative "rights" and relative "wrongs", but practically speaking, some relatives may as well be treated as absolutes. It really depends on the goal of any specific context.
Also, we may not have the answer now, but that doesnt mean we won't have the answer soon or eventually.
To the specific question, in general I would say no, that is an immoral decision, but that may be because I reject the notion that torturing people wins wars. It may result in achieving your final goal, but does it prevent or promote future wars? I would say it promotes future wars, because when we engage in torture, we imply that for us it's ok, but then if our own troops get tortured, we wish that it wasnt even an option. At least I hope that's a common reaction. If this is the case, though, it only promotes greater enmity between opposing forces. We demonize each other and use horrific methods as the solution to a problem we're helping to perpetuate.
I would rather the US adopt a neutral stance and use other means to denounce the practices of some of the more egregious uses of power in the world. We have the means to avoid war, we should utilize them. Torture doesnt "end"wars. It reaffirms our position as an enemy. In that scenario, we may win a battle that gives momentary peace, but it can't last if we see the other side as subhuman and less than ourselves.
If we don't want our troops tortured, we shouldnt torture someone else's troops. That's just my opinion.

Moral absolutes that allow for some relative adjustments.

It is perfectly possible to be in circumstances where what is required is legally right, ethically right but religiously wrong, morally wrong and yet your actions are governed by the necessities of the situation and require you to do nothing at all, course that is at once right wrong and prerequisite.

Right wrong, good bad, correct and at fault are all relative and always dependent on context.

What is right and wrong is situation dependent, based on what is going to be the most beneficial action to achieve a particular goal given the circumstances.

Right is something that helps you achieve your goal.

Wrong is something that doesn't help or makes it harder to achieve your goal.

What goals you have are completely arbitrary and depend entirely on your own personal desires and values.

So, in order to answer a question like "is torture acceptable in order to win a war" You have to take a step back and ask: "is winning the war the ultimate goal?" If it is, then torture is an extra, unnecessary step because you might for example nuke the enemy to win the war completely.

It is more than likely that "winning the war" is a sub goal of a much larger goal, anything from obtaining resources, to changing the political landscape in a region, or maximizing populace approval to get re-elected. In the 2nd and 3rd examples, torture could be counter productive to the overall goal, and would therefore be the wrong answer, because the people will be less likely to accept a different governing structure or vote for you again.

It is so sad, but unfortunately the states are totally rational, they can torture for win the war, or they dont, because it depends over what the states wants, maybe the state wants that war continues for estimulating the economy, or they want to stop, but i am assured that governments around the world don't matters about humane life durring a war they only think in advantages.

Right and wrong exist only in the mind. The mind can be fooled depending upon what it is given.

The concept is alien in the physical world. It only exists within our conscious being.

When we cease to exist, the concept is extinguished (within our mind anyway)

It's mostly fixed...but is heavily dependent on every details and circumstance, both past and future, to make the right choice.

It's impossible to know every detail so it's impossible to make a right choice without some guessing.

Also there is the concept of the dilemma where you are stuck with two equally bad choices, and you have a short time to pick one in a state of total ignorance. Sophie's choice comes to mind....

Rational reasoning could possibly answer this question, but probably not within the constraints of just choosing A or B. All laws are subjective, All morality based on religions (religious law) are subjective. Even the "Laws" of physics are based on what we are capable of perceiving. There is, IN MY OPINION, only 1 moral concept that is universally valid, the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have others do unto you. That concept is prevalent in almost all religions and schools of thought, and if it were universally accepted and followed, the World would be essentially conflict free
There will probably always be exceptions: sociopaths, psychopaths, etc.

Not sure where are you going with this....

OK: since all decisions/actions require context, then all such are relative.

So, context is required in order to judge whether a particular action is required/optimal.

Context: we all aspire to a perfect/better world. Using this context there are clearly absolutes with respect to attaining/maintaining it.

... Gravity is pretty clearly a reality: jumping from high places will result in some nasty stuff.
So, it is our expectations of our behavior that determines the references to absolutes. Sorta.

Relative is and is always relative!!!

Is that not why everything is relative???

LMAO!!!!

In a few dire situations I think that torture would give the best outcome. One person might suffer, but in turn many lives might be saved. We have evolved to help each other survive, especially those in our groups.

From the viewpoint of nature, God, or whatever you want to call ultimate reality, a human body is nothing but an assemblage of energy, having little or no value. The entire chain of life as a whole however does have value and function or it wouldn’t exist IMO. Based on this opinion I try not to make moral judgments about the behavior of others.

We have to make personal decisions but we don’t have make moral judgments about the decisions of other people.

It depends upon the context you place right or wrong.

Are you looking from a religious sense, the context of deviance and conformity, personal ethic etc.

Not enough information to address where anything lies along the continuum of right and wrong.

Everything depends on the circumstances.

My foundation for morality is that bringing unnecessary harm to a living thing is wrong, but i recognize that that’s MY belief. others might centralize humans more, rather than just anything living, or something like a god’s will. i would argue that some are more or less valid, but that’s a really complicated thing to discuss.

Scary that people could vote that if they are rational they can't answer the question. Some states say it's wrong to have sex with a 12 yr old, others have different ages. Do you have to be irrational to see that obviously right and wrong is relative? Or just a relative of the girl who was raped. This site never ceases to amaze.

And why do we have to wonder? Because if no one notices the faulty premise it's ok? Or the other faulty premise that rational thinking promotes absolute answers. Of course it's a free site and you can make up any premises you want. Like snake oil, someone will buy it.

If it harms another living being to no purpose that serves the world, it's wrong. If it helps a single living being, increasing their well being and thus the well being of the entire world, then it's right. Not a hard proposition.

I don't think there is a 'right' way. There are good ways to go about doing something.