Referring back: Relationships, deep or wide?

This is a first for me ... referring back to a post as though someone may actually have read it and then may read this.

At this stage in my life, I am evaluative (possibly overly so) of every relationship I have. I am careful with my time and even more careful with my heart. I've been broken and am still putting pieces together ... but while I do that, I am still a thinker and I've been thinking a lot about relationships.

In a post from 2011, I asked what builds or kills relationships. I posited that in today's modern society, time and distance are not super relevant to whether a relationship - of any kind - could work and be healthy. Since then I've had a lot of the good and bad of life happen, so I want to readdress the question.

First, I think that distance matters. Absolutely. It takes much more diligent effort to engage with someone who is far away or not in my immediate circle than with someone who is naturally "there."  Also, if loved ones are in a place unreached by modern technology, then yes, again, interaction is much more difficult and/or costly, therefore likely less frequent. 

But, some relationships are worth the effort. If a relationship, again, of any kind (familial, friendly, or romantic), is one that a person wants to keep - or even more, wants to grow or develop - the person will make the time, give the energy, create the space for that relationship to flourish. 

And if it's not, we don't. 

The question I posed in 2011 is still rattling around my head: what makes a person or relationship worth the effort? As I've thought about this ... Yes for four years, I come to the conclusion that I could have just said at the beginning: the criteria are different for everyone.

For me, what makes a relationship worth the effort is the connection with the other person - shared trust, mutuality, love, and respect. If I have real connection with someone, I don't care if they are near or far, I will find the time and space to relate with them in whatever capacity and to the level they are willing and we are both available. The hard part is identifying, before and while investing, where those shared levels of trust, mutuality, love, and respect are ... while also identifying what the other person's connection points are ... all while actually relating, not standing back analyzing what could be as opposed to what simply is.

Question Series: Morality

Recently I had a fantastic and very long conversation with a friend. In the midst of our hours (or days ...) of talking around, within, and about our chosen topic, she said that some action was "immoral." I am a thinker (and a bit of a skeptic), so I began rolling through a series of general questions about the concept of morality.  I posed these questions to her in an email - and here they are. 

1. When you ponder the morality of an activity, what parameters (rules) do you apply?
2. Where do those rules come from (all one source, or a synthesis of multiple sources)?
3. If an activity could be considered amoral (no ethical basis for action or inaction; or different sets of parameters could mean varying principles for "moral" or not), do you tend to label that activity "immoral" or "moral"?  (simply:  what is your default setting?)
4. Does "moral" = "right"; does "immoral" = "wrong"?  Examples of each?
5. Should "moral" activities be pursued with rigor?
6. Should "immoral" activities be avoided?
7. If an activity is immoral and if immoral action is "wrong," what could prompt the actor to continue in the activity?  (or, more simply, why engage in acts that are wrong?)
8. Who is responsible for determining whether an act is right or wrong?
9. If a person engages in immoral acts, or fails to engage in moral acts, should that person be liable only for the outcomes of the act, or should (or do) others have authority to attach a liability to the actor?
10. From where would such authority come?
11. What type of liability could that be?

Beside the fact that I need to get a life, and probably sleep more, I would love to hear any feedback.