Cider House Rules or Moral Absolutes?

Would you rather live in a world characterized by 'The Cider House Rules' or one characterized by 'moral absolutes'.

I'd much rather live in a world characterized by moral absolutes. First of all, it is predictable that if a society were to use the ideals of Cider House Rules, in which people should be able to decide how they wish to live, it would lead to chaos and anarchy as people won't be able to live along a same rules and will obviously come into predicaments as a result. In contrast, a society with moral absolutes, which is similar to our western society, people would live with the same code of laws, and so, anybody could point out breaches to rules as well as establish order among people. Some people might argue that those who create the rules wouldn't know the struggle of those their rules affect, a central point of Cider House rules. However, if this is so, then what would happen if this concept extended farther than apple orchard workers? Should everybody create their own rules because politicians can't connect with everybody's personal lives. If this would happen, then there would be no point in forming society just because no person is the same as another. Secondly, why should people make their own rules? Can they be trusted to be just and fair to those around them? What is stopping a person from making rules for themselves that only benefit themselves. Obviously, this shows a negative outlook on humanity despite the fact that many humans can have a positive moral outlook towards benefit for many. However, eventually there will be immoral humans that come and attempt to establish rules for themselves and become a detriment to society. Because of this, it should be evident that the use of moral absolutes in society should be more useful than that by the Cider House Rules because of the improvements to order and society that moral absolutes give.