I try to keep mine very complicated. The notion of a standard for objective definitions of "good and bad" implies that there must be some force to define them, a force that is wholly separate from one's self. It would seem that the only obvious form that this insidious force takes shape is in the geographical waves of structure of thought among human beings on earth.

That is, people, as they live their lives, form distinct aesthetic reactions and emotional behaviors associated with their conscious learnings and experiences, and those thoughts form their personal definitions for the polar concepts of right and wrong. Often the events that form these definitions are major points in people's lives, and the schemata they form from them can be intense.

Incidentally, humans live in close quarters, and have a clan structure that beautifully transmits individual communication, thus gifting each person great potential to influence the lives of those around them in weird, abstract ways. After a little time together, groups of people learn to agree with the each others moral aesthetics, on the major points at least. After a while, people don't even notice their agreement, or notice the moral dilemmas inherent to practically every facet of being alive. Some people never notice, from birth to death.

So my definitions of "right" and "wrong" are such.

Right: It is right to act as I feel is right, but only if I have examined it against the climate of moral thought and made a judgment as to it's accuracy upon my even baser aesthetic response to it.

Wrong: It is right to judge wrong as what I feel to conflict (not refute, only conflict) my definition of what is right.