@CM, I think someone has already said this to you: don't worry about the future when you aren't living the present. Smell the roses now. Live now.
As for the issue of morality, it can't be so strictly defined because there are always circumstances, real or hypothetical, that will break the boundary and there are always epistomological problems regarding the words themselves. For example, you say that morality is defined as anything that hurts someone is wrong. Well, what does "hurt" entail? Is that physically, mentally, emotionally, long term, short term, and so forth? Since you haven't defined or established the parameters of "hurt," it is an ill-defined term that may or may not mean the same thing to all of us, and when you do define hurt, you will be hard pressed to do it without needing to define other terms and/or involve the concept of morality in its definition, which means you'll run the issue of circularity. Moreover, there are plenty of circumstances where you can hurt someone physically or in the short run but you mean well and your action helps the person in the long run. Is that "morally wrong" then?
To say that morality is absolute is to run into many brick walls, some of which can't be crossed philosophically or even quantum mechanically. You run into other issues too if you say that morality is all relative. Life and all its inherent problems and beauties is not so easily deconstructed. Otherwise, we would have done it already.