Arguing extremes seems a fruitless path to walk when defining relations.
I have tried to explain a few times on this forum that any system inside our universe needs to have both static-like and dynamic-like components to be able to interact with the environment and not have it's structure dilluted.
When you take either the static or dynamic component to its extreme the system will stop functioning.
It is all about the right balance in a given situation.
Taken to the extreme the statist view becomes too static and the anarchist view too chaotic.
Thinking in singular extremes is a poor way to define systems.
Basic morals are not negotiable.
Murder unless in self-defence is wrong, no matter how you look at it.So, how would you classify a mother that killed a person that she perceived as threatning the life of her baby?
What are the basic morals that apply here?
Basic morals is a loaded term. 'Basic Morals' have been fluctuating since humans have been alive. There is very little static 'truth' in the world, if any. If there is it's probably only that 'things change' -- including 'Basic Morals'.
But if we are talking about Basic Morels, they are very tasty when butter is applied along with a hot pan.