>

Well, I think.... what OP is trying to say is..... its easy to do the right thing if the situation is black and white. And perhaps a bit less telling.
What about some morally grey situations like.... are you willing to lie for the greater good for example? How much of a lie for how much greater good right? 
The way I interpret your response is that your most defining traits are already divided up between the two (or multiple) or whatever sides and.... that's okay. I think we all try to do this; honestly. I just think OPs point is interesting because I feel sometimes situations DO come up that make you wonder, what IS the right choice, or which choice do you even want. 
Um.... just a random example that popped into my head.  
Uhhh.... You're walking down the street, and see uhh I don't know....  $10 on the ground. The pair walking ahead of you are about a half block down. You'd REALLY have to yell to return it to them even if it was theirs. On the other hand, there is a homeless man in an alley that has his eyes on the area of the street where the money lays, but has made no motion to get up as you're much closer. What do you do?
If the answer is still obvious to you, change the distance of the homeless man, or the pair who possibly dropped it, or the amount. ;)
This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.
Remember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not "thoughts had in the shower!"
(For an explanation of what a "showerthought" is, please read this page.)
Rule-breaking posts may result in bans. >

Morals were a construct of society not the individual until the Nuremberg Trials were forced to make the distinction that one cannot just follow orders, yet we continue to prosecute Whistle Blowers to this very day and so it seems we have learned nothing. >

Morals have never been a construct of society and to think one event in the last 100 changed anything is ridiculous >

... So what would they be constructed by? >

I was just watching a video on Moral Development (subtopic of Developmental Psychology) that I'm reminded of. It's about how children/people develop morals. The focus is on how they arrive to a conclusion regarding a dilemma (a man steals heavily marked-up medicine for his dying wife)...how do you justify the action of stealing?
The stages (according to Kohlberg's theory) go from preconventional (what is the consequence of my action? e.g. the man shouldn't steal because he might go to prison) to conventional (what would society think? e.g. the man should steal to be a "good husband") to postconventional (what are my overall ethical principles? e.g. committing a small crime for the greater good).
Postconventional is where we start to consider "social contracts" and "abstract ethical principles" which I think relates to this showerthought.
And Developmental Psychology is about how we become to be who we are in terms of physical, cognitive, social and emotional factors. So I would say that your reasoning and justification for morally grey scenarios is a defining characteristic of you but probably not the "main part" because there's so much to psychology. >

I mean, it's easily possible for any situation to fall into a more sharply defined area of your morality as well.
I think it's probably much more correct to say that morality is one of the main defining characteristics of you. The gray areas mean less without the whole picture and spectrum. >

agreed, but i think op’s point was that where two different people would decide to stop something or to intervene is a defining characteristic that separates them >

My favorite shows are Star Trek: Deep Space Nine and Better Call Saul... You are 100% right >

Man, that episode where Sisko committed war crimes against the Maquis!?  Cold AF.  That’s the moment I decided the Federation were the bad guys. >

Something actually THOUGHT PROVOKING here!?!??!!!? Get OUTA here with that! jkjkjk
(this is so rare, I want to cry) >

My most defining traits are the farthest from my gray area as possible