Determinism.....

[Tiberius]

Tiberius: Well you can only go by what you know, you can't be saying what if Hitler killed people worse than him. Even if he did he still killed millions and also he didn't do it on purpose so it wouldn't be considered good on his part ether way.

Yet moral relativists who subscribe to "the ends justify the means" would argue that the end result was the best possible, and so invalidates any "morality" associated with the means of getting there.

I would have thought moral absolutists would save the many.

No, moral absolutists would say that killing the baby is an immoral act, and you cannot balance immoral acts with a lot of moral acts. Comparing the baby/train example to the Hitler example: Hitler killing millions to save (hypothetically) even more people from the tyrants greater than he is no different to you killing the baby to save the hundred. It's just with bigger numbers. You can use another example: Would you kill 6,000,000 people if you knew that there were tyrants amongst them who would murder billions, and yet you know you cannot know which of them are tyrants before it is too late? For moral relativists the question is a hard one, since they have to justify the murder of innocent people, but some (if not most) would kill the "few" to save the many. Moral absolutists would not be able to make the decision, since both roads lead to immoral decisions.

As for me I would say the end doesn't always justify the means and that morality can be black and white even if it isn't obvious. By that I mean there is a right and wrong action, we just need to figure it out.

There are right and wrong actions, but I hold that they are right and wrong for specific people. A terrorist of one people is a freedom fighter of another.