The idea of right and wrong depends on the point of view to begin with so it is subjective by its very nature. A lot of people like to throw around an idea of morality or immorality, but to being to decide who is more or less moral they need a moral system. Most of the people in the world do have such a system outlining their codes, laws, or whatever the hell they want to call them.
If I was a betting man, which I am, I'd bet they are using a christian or what is perceived as a christian system. So basically if you're human you're a sinner, immoral, and going to hell. I could go into that more, but that is a whole other ball game.
The ironic thing is that the people who don't have a 'system' probably have a higher level of morality. Really though all you need to be moral is empathy and a good head. Why is the obvious question.
Well if you flip through some of the more popular religious texts you well find some not so moral looking ideas. By not so moral I mean killing for following the wrong god or working on the wrong day. Few of the practitioners of those religions would be following the ideas as they are laid out though. One of the big reasons would be the law, but it is a little deeper then that.
The people who read something like "stone your kid if they talk back" are first going to think something about the killing, their kid, or the punishment not fitting the crime. With the idea of killing is the harm that is to befall the rule breaker. Few would really want to be the person responsible for such things.
When they think about the harm coming to other they are using empathy to do that and then don't want to cause it. When that happens they have two 'choices.' One, rationalize the whole damn problem away with things like, "its not my fault its theirs/god's/my boss's." Or two, rationalize away the rule all together with things like, "Oh that line right there is aligory" or "it doesn't count anymore." The first is more dangerous and is really the manifesting of more common psychological phnoma. The second is a person picking their rule set or picking what is right and wrong.
Lets look at case.
Little jonny is walking home from school. Enter not so little tommy.
Tommy: Hey, jonny give me your money.
Jonny: No, this is my money.
Tommy: I will hurt you if don't.
Jonny is hurt. Poor jonny, let us hug and comfort him. Done? Good.
You will most likely say Tommy was in the wrong here, but look at it from Tommy's view for a sec. Tommy wants money Jonny has it. Tommy warned Jonny why wouldn't Jonny just make life easier on himself and GIVE the money over? In Tommy's mind Jonny is the one who broke a rule and thus received punishment.
If you are fairly normal you could show Tommy why he is wrong. Jonny's money was not Tommy's and to get it through threat is no where near a gift. Most people can empathize with Jonny and not want to cause him harm. Tommy knows he is harming Jonny and probably would not use it has a threat if he didn't know how Jonny might feel about it. Tommy then puts his needs not just over Jonny's but at the cost of Jonny's.
There is nothing wrong with eating what little food you have, but there would be something wrong with stealing what little food others might have. On the other hand you would probably steal if you were going to die.
The point is that what is right or the best move is dependent on the point of view. And most of the common "basic moral laws" have exceptions. Not very law like if I can find my way around them I think.
Killing is always wrong, right? What if someone is trying to kill you?
Stealing? Are you willing to starve to preserve your morals?
Rape? The rapist didn't seem to have a problem with it, sadly.
Most 'gut feels' are probably going to be right enough for morals because the rule set we follow is one that has developed over time and thought to us in some manner. There is that and few humans get joy out of inflecting pain on others. I say few because some do and inflect because we do laugh at others pain we just have a level most don't like to cross.