Objective morality either exists or all of morality is a complete illusion. It is logically flawed to say that morals are created by people. If this were the case they wouldn't be real or objective because they would be able to change, therefore not always true. Instead morals would simply be mere opinions that people hold. Therefore it follows that if morals are subjective that murder, rape, child molestation, genocide and the whole list of terrible deeds are neither right nor wrong. They simply are distasteful. People and society in general are under the illusion that they are big enough to create their own morals. Morals exist objectively transcendentally or not at all. Even though society is continuing to become more corrupt, people know when they do something wrong. A world without real morality would have descended into chaos a long time ago. If morality didn't exist, no remorse would ever be felt for anything wrong, and no positive feelings would be felt when something good was done.
Even tho matters of "right and wrong" is subject to opinion. There is one undeniable fact and that is the overall human species favors one ideology over many many more. Our past history paint a very nice picture. Humans as a species has always been a species that favors community and in order to have a functional Community to pull together thoughts ideas & strengths there has to be an overall consensus of right and wrong which with natural selection and evolution has instilled and hard-wired the answer to what right and what's wrong. Obviously every factual statement will have it's outliers in this case mental instability brought on by possibly disease genetic malformities or physical injury. Butt the older all growing population of big cities and towns across the world prove that there is a overall knowing of what is right and what is wrong otherwise these big cities of today would have collapsed and died years ago... Sorry about any typos I hate proofreading;)
Going to first assume that you mean right or wrong in moral terms. I think it sort of comes down to meta-ethics and expressivism. Right and wrong are obviously subjective expressions and interpretations but they're ones that I feel generally reflect objective moral attitudes in normative groups.
These normative groups decide the practical guidelines for what is right and wrong. In the sense of humanity, there are certain right and wrongs that are so consistent that to compromise them would be considered wrong.
Since it's fundamental in our anthropology to coexist with these attitudes (for our own benefit and wellbeing) and since we're dealing with language here to signify and define it, I think saying that some things are fundamentally right or wrong, has some validity.
There is no right or wrong, it is up to our desires. If any thing is against our hope, desire, need, requirement that will be wrong. For example: if a cat is catching to mouse for eating, we feel it wrong, but is it wrong for cate? No, it is natural right of cate to survive. Wrong and right based on needs. Sorry if i am wrong and hope many people will guide me. Thanks