Morals ethics are all relative. Like a hologram, how you perceive depends on where you look from. From my angle it looks black without a doubt, but from somewhere else, it looks gray, maybe even white. Is there a right angle of sight? Is there a person who can possibly know which angle to look from to spot the truth? Is there a thing as truth? Or is it relative too? See if morals are all relative, what are they relative to? 

How we perceive is a function of our mind. As time passes, our brain gets "hard-wired" so to speak, and we begin reacting to things in increasingly constant patterns. The processing of familiar inputs is stored and iterates to a more or less fixed algorithm. What is, I believe, of essence is, the initial inputs given which passes through our mind's "transfer function" and gives a certain output, well that transfer function is what is subject to change in the early stages of the mind. for it takes in feedback of the output it generated from a particular input. so of essence is how and what are the combinations of input as well as feedbacks which lead to what is called a sound person.

(Feedback is probably the most important word, biologically. "feedback loops are the reason for multistationarity" think about it. if there were no feedback, every person would behave in only a way it was born with. that means, that other people would not have any effect on you ever. you are what you are right now because of the people that have come in your life. if THAT variable is taken out what makes you unique?! no multiple stationary points. before you know it the entire race would have been extinct.)

that soundness is also variable. As in, a person could be sound in one aspect, but apparently insane in other. That depends on what "transfer function" in the given context, has your brain reached, which as hypothized before, depends on inputs it faced during its formative period. Experiences. However, even a well drilled mind can be changed if an input of sufficient intensity were incident. As chemistry teaches us, it is not just intensity, but the wavelength of incident light is also important. An electron will absorb a photon only if it is of a particular wavelength. That change occurrence is brought about only by few. Accidental, yes, but if otherwise, be assured that such a person who can bring it about is an accomplished person.

If there is indeed a varying level of soundness, there must be a probability distribution. and since there are almost completely unsound persons, there must exist an almost completely sound person, eh? So is that person, what we are all relative to? what you want to see yourself relative to is also your own choice, though. You could be around average and compare yourself with the "bad" extreme :P So what I am saying is morals ethics etc are not just relative to each other, but to some fixed state too. Imagine if there was only one person on the earth. He could either be barbaric or be well behaved. It wouldn't matter though since no one would be there to give a fuck. :P that behaviour is not perceived by himself since there is no one else to compare and hence no feedback ! but still if you were an invisible observer, you could judge. So indeed there must be some point to which everything is relative, I conclude thus.