As with most of these questions relating to the reasoning behind who we are as people, the answer is going to vary by individual. Some people refrain from doing the wrong thing because they wish to avoid the legal consequences of doing something the law states to be wrong. Others refrain because they do have personal convictions that it is morally inappropriate to do the wrong thing. The same thing goes for people who do something most of us would agree is wrong. Some kill for no reason other than they get some sort of thrill out of doing so. Others would not normally be inclined to kill but happen to do it out of anger or other impulsive circumstances. Others still simply do not have it in them to kill regardless of the circumstances. Likewise, some rob banks for no reason other than greed. Others rob them because they need the money to support their families. Others would never rob a bank no matter how bad things get.

I believe that when it comes to determining what exactly the wrong thing is, some elements of morality are universal while others are not. For example, I believe it is universally immoral to take the life of another human being. But I do not believe it is universally right or wrong to use consciousness-altering substances. Some actions are left to the individual to decide the morality of, while others are decided by the well-being of humanity as a whole.

Avoiding doing wrong because there is a law is doing the wrong thing...Too many people give up the moral argument because they can make a law, and let coersion wreck their moral argument... It is not only the ideal, but the practical good to have all people choose to to do good out of freedom and an awareness of its consequences... The burden of law, and the consequnces of coersion are always far worse than a little incidental wrong done by the ignorant... Which no amount of law can stop anyway...

I have brought ontology into this debate because we are talking about science and the natural rightness or wrongness of actions. There is no question that most human beings have an innate moral sensibility, but that still doesn't provide a satisfactory ontological argument for morality. Some human beings are born with no moral sensibility at all, and we call these people psychopaths.

There is no innate rightness or wrongness to anything. Animals kill and eat each other everyday (including us), and while the predator may love the feeling of devouring the flesh of its prey, the prey hates the feeling of being in pain and being killed. The universe or nature is neither benevolent or malevolent, and so we can not say that because something feels bad (according to how we perceive it) that means that it must natural be bad.

I understand what you were saying now, I just wanted to get the ontological argument out of the way, because there is no compelling way that you can use the natural sciences to justify axiology. With that said, there is no question that the social sciences can provide meta-ethical justification for moral universalism.

So, you know that psychopaths are born and not made???

Look a the larger view: In the eyes of society the suffering of the individual can be good or bad... Since every relationship demands a sacrifice this is true also of simple relationships as well as manifold relationships...If you will not sacrifice something for the relationship, it is not much of a relationship...On the other side, from the perspective of society, if it has no sense of its own well being, it will destroy itself eventually anyway...Every society sees good, and people serve that good for an opportunity for long term survival, and survival is the ultimate good...

Are you saying that the highest value is survival? It doesn't sound like you're speaking of Survivalism, which is the thesis that the ultimate value is inclusive reproductive fitness.

I believe that the ultimate value is either the greatest happiness for the greatest number (utilitarianism) or extropy (extropianism). I haven't quite decided yet, lol. Ethics is probably the most difficult subject in philosophy, and I haven't gone through it enough, as of yet. Extropianism does entail the survival value that you speak of, though.

How about happiness possible for all which can only result from working forms of relationship???

Reproductive fitness, health, living without injuring the environment or each other, self government, balancing individualism and irrationality with community and rationality; Ya, that about it, life in support of life... We can do it...