It seems like we always have the difficulty in knowing exactly what decision to make. Sure, most morals are straightforward, like against murder, theft, violence, dishonesty, fornication, well basically anything that degrades the dignity of humanity, and dishonors God. Yet, it is not always easy to know what is the morally appropriate choice. Now I am not advocating Moral Relativism, but i do acknowledge that moral decisions are not as easy as we wish they were. Since many times, we cannot expect the outcome to be ideal. So we have different forms, like Deontology, Utilitarianism, consequentialism, happiness, equality, distribution, ect. Then we can easily justify certain moral actions through cherrypicking bible verses, repeating some quote, or figuring out some benefit. Like how someone may use 1 Peter 2 to justify slavery, rattle off a phrase “For the greater good” or saying the ends justifies the means, like “Cheating on your wife made you realize how much you love her” kind of bogus.
Actually, you won’t. You have only good guidelines from Christian theology and the philosophy branch of ethics. So how would you know you would make the right choice in this video (i.e. which I’ve including in our discussion on war):
Let me give you an answer in Zeno’s Paradoses, and underline the important part:
So while you should study ethics in philosophy and Christian theology, you would be close enough for all practical purposes - in making ethical decisions in most situations. And if you fall short, Christianity does offer forgiveness of sins.
Before I bring up the medical case with my mom, look at this short video
Now before my mom passed on October 4, 2013, I was asked by the physicians to take her off life support and she was in a comma.
To insure I was making the right scientific and bioethics decision, I made sure the right laboratory tests were preformed.
To insure I was making the right theological decision, I consulted with clergy from the Protestant, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions.
I then held a meeting with the chief doctor, a nurse, a hospital chaplain and my cousin and her husband (i.e. who lived close by). I asked questions of the doctor from a scientific and bioethics perspective. I asked the same questions of the hospital chaplain, which I asked of the Christian clergy. Then I asked for any input from family members.
Then I had them remove life support. Now I might have made the wrong decision. But I got the best input for making that decision.
What a terrible decision for you to have to make, Randy. 
Now I understand better why this was such a traumatic event for you. I have lost my father, and at some point in the relatively near future, will lose my mother who lives on our property as I can see her failing day by day. It was sad when my father died, but I knew he would be with the Lord. He should have lived here longer and he should have (imo) died a less painful and lingering death, but once the suffering is over, it’s over. While I mourn my loss, I rejoice for his gain. However, if I’d been asked to make a decision to remove life support (as you were), I’m certain my feelings on the matter would be far different. I’m so glad you did get everyone’s input. It would be worse if you hadn’t, I’m sure.
And thanks for posting Xeno’s paradox. I learned a lot from that. 
Thanks, Cindy. I’m sure in my mom’s case, I made the right decision. And all the scientific experts (i.e. physicians) and theologians (i.e. Protestant, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox) also felt the same way. Luckily, I did attend Grief Share meetings (which is a Christian video series), held at local churches. The best part was discussing the grief and death with others, under the guidance of a trained facilitator. The second year is much easier for me, as my mom passed on Oct. 4, 2013.
Both I have to say, sorry about your loss. I have never been in a situation, as I am still young, so my parents are alive and well. I hate to patronize the situation, but I had to go through something similar when deciding to put the family dog down two summers ago. As she was 17 years old, and eventually made the decision. But I can understand how one can feel guilty about feeling responsible for anothers death. Plus, I know that we sometimes wish that things would just happen without having to decide. Like last year, I was in a toxic job that I was just wishing that I would get laid off from, or I would have to make the decision to leave.
Randy, I am terribly sorry for the loss of your mother. I can not imagine what that is like. Peace upon you.
To answer the OP,
My thesis is this: Morality is based upon our perception of the best possible action in any given situation. While moral relativism plays a part, it should not be the justification for any action.
An example of moral relativism argued is that people who are insane can not make good moral decisions because their brains are fried. This negative, extreme example stands in contrast to the morally outstanding citizen. But then we can talk about how insanity impacts how moral one can be or the converse in how moral a Christian must be. The idea is that there is a spectrum from bad to good moral choices rather than a binary system of perfection. One is not either totally good or bad. Even justification in Christ does not make a person as an “actual” good person in deeds.
To answer your question explicitly, our day-to-day moral choices are “good” according to the one who judges and that is Jesus. The only assurance one can have for moral perfection in specific situations is to ask oneself how exactly would Jesus have acted. Since all of us have slightly different perceptions of Jesus, there will never quite be moral continuity that churches can set standards for. Nevertheless, Jesus can only judge us according to the Light that is given to us by our Father.
By this, you may have figured out that my underlying assumption about the seriousness of the “best” moral decision is somewhat relaxed as Christ judges general intent rather than one’s “striving conscientious conviction”. If one follows their conscientious conviction then they receive their reward with the Father in secret while general intent underscores righteousness in the general sense without appeal to strict morality. So if you want the best moral choice, err on the side of caution.
Just one more example: If I have the opportunity to help someone who falls and doesn’t immediately get back up, I would be required to help that person under strict morality. No questions asked. Shyness wouldn’t even be an impediment. However, if I have a relaxed morality based on general intent I can walk past the person because I permit my shyness to override my feeling of guilt. If the goal is to attain the greatest possible morality in “deed”, then one would simply obey their conscience without asking questions. In addition, there is a deep feeling of satisfaction when doing the right thing automatically. A very moral person mentally conditions themselves to righteousness by the desire for said satisfaction.
Lot’s of religions offer forgiveness of sins. Not suggesting you were not saying this was so, just wanted to make that point.