Define Success (Part 2): Moral Relativism, Observer Created Universe and More Q's than A's

The continuation of this discussion requires the assumption of several things; however success is defined it must contain value under the one major heading: influence. And to repeat this influence is not neccessarily power, popularity, wealth, et al but merely the ability to affect change. It can be argued that for an act to be"successful" does not require a universal perception of positive influence; as a test for this we can look to acts deemed universally negative (such as Hitler's physical and psychological trouncing of Europe) for lessons on how to be successful, i.e. if Hitler had been working toward a common good and yet used his brilliance and charisma to overthrow a tyranny he would be heralded as a hero. Therefore negative actions can be considered successful, but for application into our personal lives we would much rather define it in terms of what we determine to be "good".

Moral Relativism:
It is a common assertion that while theft in general is bad, stealing bread for a starving family is to be excused by authorities ranging from local to divine. Likewise, while violence is frowned upon, murder in self-defense is thought of as the actions of a hero. Even within our stricit morality there is a sliding scale that depends on circumstances, all encapsulated within an only slightly broader set of circumstances we can call the "human situation". This situation consists of being a living being on this planet, being subject to the laws of physics and their extrapolations into the laws of chemistry and biology. There is no morality to these scientific laws, we are not carbon-based organisms because it is the "right" thing to do, gravity does not influence us because it has the moral authority to decide which way is down. These laws are the broadest set of circumstances and because we exist in spite of them rather than the other way around we have no basis on which to philosophize whether or not they are correct, they merely are. Nonetheless, we have worked hard to determine a set of codes by which all of us should live, and nearly every rule that has lasted the aeons and remains enforced deals strictly with how one human being relates to another. Frequently, these codes emerge independently among various cultures; just as frequently naunces vary greatly and what is right amongst one civilization is deemed wrong in another. This argument has existed in Western culture likely since white people discovered tribes practicing infanticide/paganism/whatever and, upon delcaring their savagery and immorality, decided these individuals were uneducated, subhuman and disposable. This represents a significant clash of cultures in which a person of any vintage or creed could declare both sides were wrong, or right for that matter. The point is that the idea of right and wrong is at best a social construct. It makes sense that many individuals would reach an approximation of the same values without even being educated about them because many of our civilizations are essentially the same. That is, a farming based community will share many of the same values with other agricultural communities (more so communities farming the same crops or living within the same environs) as would hunter-gatherer groups share many common interests.
If right and wrong are simply social constructs there can be a set of rules for deciding them, and thus a very broad set of "rules" that could be applied to anyone and possibly incorporate wildly different lifestyles.
I propose arranging a set of of prioritized groups (each one in sequence larger than and composed of the previous) that goes something like this:

Yourself
Family/Friends
Community
Society
Species

What this means is that everything you do should be arguably good for all 5 groups, however it is most important that your acts are good for yourself (health, survival, development etc) followed closely by those you know personally as family or have adopted psychologically as family members. Followed behind this your actions should be, if not tremendously positive for your community, at least responsible to and mindful of the needs of your community. Followed behind this your actions should be concerned with the current circumstances of your society (whether you consider it the nation or the globe). Of still significant concern is whether or not your actions are positive or negative with respect to your species.

Notice this manner of prioritization makes no claim about what is good for any of these things, that is for the individual to decide through experience, careful thought, conversation with diverse groups, and lifelong education. No one really knows what may be good for the species; perhaps the species (man) is at its best currently, maybe its numbers must be reduced and its technological advancement reconsidered. This system of prioritization also allows for current mores to be inserted. Vegetarianism and PETA-esque animal ethics make sense in one way: refraining from killing animals and ingesting them introduces health benefits for individuals, efficiences for a civilization, and a peaceful cohabitation for our species. Likewise any personal philosophy can find room within these priorities. The important thing is, as always, balance. Not every act you take will have species level implications but the outcome of your life in general certainly will. Every action you take, however, does have implications for you as a person and who you are ripples through each of these levels.

So, for the sake of further approaching the definition of success, let's state that whatever it is the individual on trial for "success" must be in the balance "positive" through their list of priorities (under the influence of whatever they have determined to be right and wrong). This means that one must decide what they think is right and wrong, decide on ambition (for an action to be successful it must in the very least be an action), and pursue it within the morals they have decided on with an eye on the implications through the list of priorities above.