Questioning the law of non-contradiction... that is a fun subject. There have been rather famous criticisms of the law. For a brief look, I suggest the Wiki.

For a more detailed look, there are two invaluable Stanford articles:
Aristotle on Non-contradiction (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Contradiction (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

As for morality - it depends on who you ask, you know? I would argue that the subjectivity of morality rests in the peculiar circumstances.

Okay, man with nothing, starving. He comes across a bread stand run by a successful man. The bread stand owner will not be noticeably harmed if one loaf goes missing. Our starving fellow steals a loaf and, as a result, lives. Was our starving man wrong? I'm not sure that he is. I wouldn't hold it against him. This seems rational to me because 1) no real harm was done, and 2) a human being's condition was dramatically improved by the action.

We could go further. Imagine a father with nothing but a starving child. He comes across a milk stand (because, you know, all sorts of stands exist ). Again, the stand owner is successful and one missing bottle will do the owner no harm. If the poor father steals some milk for his poor child, is he wrong? I do not think so. In addition to points 1 and 2 from the first example, we can also note that the father does not steal for himself: instead, the father risks criminal prosecution for the sake of another human being's life. So, this act seems even more morally acceptable and reasonable.

Generally, we can all agree that it is wrong to steal

If morality were purely subjective, or relative, then we might accurately say that both men are right or wrong - and there would be no way of determining if they are indeed right or wrong.

You bring up culture, and what is cultural relativism. I would argue that cultural relativism is not even an ethical theory because it fails to tell us how and when we should or should not act. But there are at least two other developed threads in which I explain this and other flaws of cultural relativism.

As for killing, my personal view is rather cut and dry. No, I should not kill another in self defense. That would be selfish - it asserts that my life is, somehow, inherently and necessarily more valuable than my attacker's life. While I understand the urge for self-preservation, I have yet to see a rational argument that manages to support the notion that the assailant is somehow inherently and necessarily less valuable as a human being than the defendant.

Imagine - suppose a man tries to kill you, and you kill him in self defense, but what if that man would have, in the near future, reformed his violent ways and gone on to be the next Gandhi?

I know I'll never be the next Gandhi -

it would be far better for the world for that man to kill me one day, reform the next and so improve the world.

That would be far more valuable than my life, I think.

Thanks for the links. I've only skimmed them thus far (sometimes us old guys have a hard time reading long passages of text on a computer screen), but I'm planning on printing them out tomorrow at work so I can spend some more time with them.

This seems a bit like the idea behind cultural relativism . . . is there such a thing as circumstantial relativism?

I don't know . . . I'd have to have more information before I could make any sort of call one way or another on these arguments.

How did the man (either man from your examples) come to be poor? Circumstance? Bad choices earlier in his life? What led up to his having no money to feed himself or his child? Did he spend what money he might have had to feed his own drug addiction?

In point 2 of your argument, what if the improvement in his condition was to give him the strength to go mug, and possibly injure, another human being so he could buy more drugs?

Doesn't it seem that we have to be very, very specific before we can rationally deliver a moral judgement? And at this point, couldn't we just circle back to your original statement of, then drop the gavel and be done with it just to simplify matters?

Is this an argument against non-contradiction, or do I need to shut up my mouth until I thoroughly read (and comprehend) the material on the links you provided?

Having not read the threads you mention, I'm still going to take a risk and disagree with this. I would say that cultural factors do indeed tell us (or try to tell us) how and when we should and should not act. Here I will reference Joseph Campbell, who always insisted that the purpose of myths, which are inextricably tied to culture, is to tell us how to live as decent human beings. The when is there as well, as in various tribal rites of passage.

Are you asserting then that your life is less valuable than someone who has the capacity to kill another human being?

Or, what if he kills you, doesn't reform, and goes on to kill the next Gandhi? Wouldn't the inverse of your logic be that by not killing him in the defense of your own life that it would be your fault if he went on to kill the next Gandhi?

And just by way of historical tribute:
Gandhi, Mahatma (1869-1948): Assassinated.
Gandhi, Indira (1917-1984): Assassinated.
Gandhi, Rajiv (1944-1991): Assassinated.

There are just way too many what ifs going on here. I'm not sure I like the Probabilistic undertones that I'm inferring from that.

Are you saying that if you were face to face with a chainsaw-wielding maniac, and you had a Colt model 1911 .45 auto locked and loaded and pointed at his center of body mass in the very picture of a John Woo choreographed standoff that you would lower your weapon and say, "Well, there's a possibility that you could reform and become a champion of goodness, so just go ahead and saw my head off because far be it for me to prevent you from fulfilling your destiny, even though I'm basing that premise of a future reformation based on utter b . . . " BBBRZZZZZZWHIRR Arrrrggghhhh!

Nothing wrong with Scarface, don't be dissing me Scarface, it's just not on ok.

Yeah, he has had some great roles; I'm not so sure about some of his more recent work, though. The DeNiro movie seemed a little forced, a sort of 'any script to get them together' kind of thing. They're both still favorites of mine.