There are plenty of people that aren't really concerned about whether a given action so taken by them is moral or not, or right or not, and thus pretty much go about their business without the serious contemplation of such. On the other hand, there is a significant amount of people, that do care as to whether what they are doing is right or wrong, moral or immoral, but are prone to judge their own actions through the prism that favors their perspective and their judgment, above all others, and especially those others that seemingly have a valid counterpoint.
For all those that actually do care about how their actions, behaviors, and deeds, are received by those that they interact with, the reality of the situation is that the judgment of such, should primarily be held by those that are our fellow sojourners in society. That is to say, fair judgment, is always best done by a jury of our peers or by a higher agency, as opposed to each one of us, judging ourselves, as if somehow, we can separate our ego enough, while also removing self-justification, so of, to come to a fair judgment.
It then follows, that what we so define as right or wrong, logically follows that it must have the characteristic of a universal doctrine. In other words, morality can't be that sometimes something is right and sometimes that very same thing is wrong, solely dependent upon which side of the equation that we are on, or in conformance to what we so personally desire it to be; rather, it needs to be consistent while also being perceived by outside parties as having been fairly applied, all of the time. So then, it is fair to say, that what is good for the goose, must also be good for the gander, or else that isn't justice, and therefore that isn't right.
Intuitively, we know, that what is moral, can never be that which changes with the seasons, or changes with the times; for such to be a universal law, it must be correct for all seasons and all times, or else, it isn't really moral, but rather it is something that gives, at best, the illusion of being moral, but at its core, cannot be. This signifies that a moral law, in order to be moral, must at its foundation be that which is universal, and thereby applicable equally to all, while also being that which is good in its substance, by thereby being a principle that will be of beneficence to whole of the people, and not just to the benefit of a select few.
So then, that which is moral consists of that which is universal, along with that which is also good. For, in reality, we so find that nothing is moral if it cannot sustain itself as a universal principle that is applicable to all; in addition to also having a purpose that must always uphold humankind's unalienable rights, as well as encouraging and supporting the improvement of our character. All those combined, thereby, are the attributes of morality, and if any of those elements are missing, then such is not moral.