Question Series: Hurt

Every so often, something that someone says or does hurts my feelings (I am sort of human, I do have feelings).  A "first response" when I feel emotionally slapped is to slap back - harder, so they learn a lesson.  This is all verbal, of course, not actual slapping ... but you know what I mean.  I am not opposed to confrontation - some say I seem to enjoy it - but I do "vet" myself before letting someone have it. Here is the series of questions I ask myself (and answer truthfully) before saying anything about my hurt to someone:

I.  Where does my hurt come from?

   A. From the person.

     1. Is s/he intentionally hurting me?

     2. Is s/he aware they are hurting me?

     3. Does s/he have other issues preventing an understanding of the depth of the hurt?

   B. From the person's actions separate from me.

     1. Is s/he intentionally hurting me?

     2. Is s/he aware they are hurting me?

     3. Candidly, does s/he have a legitimate reason for engaging in the conduct despite the fact that I am hurt?

II. What do I want to accomplish in confronting them?

   A.  Emotionally break him/her

   B.  Gain reconciliation him/her

     With either of these goals, you may need the support and guidance of a help group or professional.

III. Could confrontation rationally bring about that goal?

     Generally .. if "no," analysis ends, I reassess my goal, or I look for resources to get to my goal.

     If "yes," make a plan!  Leading to:

IV. What specific action can I take to meet my goal (which may include direct confrontation, or may not)?

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.