Objective morality doesn't exist. Morality is just a conception of the "ought". This conception can come from many different sources, including gut feelings. However, is NOT limited to gut feelings. A great deal of morality can come from logic and reason, even the whole of it. For instance a person could decide that it is logical and rational to stand behind the best interests of their group, nation, or even species and then strive to orient all their behave and moral judgments accordingly and that would be a morality. A person could even start their morality with "self-interest" but through noticing logical connections and correlations between their well-being and others construct a morality that is highly pro-social.
Morality is not limited to logic but it is also not limited to emotion unless you call a person's decision to
Morality for a given society will likely never be limited to just one conception or worldview, and while people are entitled to put forward their ideas and push for them morality for a society will always be a contest of wills and ideas.
There was a little kid who put his finger in a light socket. It hurt like hell. Logic told him, that this action resulted in pain. Obviously, he did not like pain. Was it a gut reaction that told him not to do that again or was it a logical deduction that told him doing it again would be wrong? I know hurting yourself by accident is not moral or immoral but knowledge of pain and how it can be inflicted or prevented is key. Of course, pain is not limited to physical but emotional as well, and one form of pain can lead to the other. We also see how giving and receiving effects negatively. This is all using observations so a logical way to determine cause and effect. People discover what is good and bad through life experiences and when an action is embedded in us as causing bad or good feelings it becomes what you call our moral intuition. Seeing that moral intuition comes from logic means that logic is the basis of morality. If morality was something we are born with and a gut feeling, then what would be the point in children's stories that teach morals?
Actions can be deemed right or wrong if a basis of right and wrong are properly defined and tested against the action.
Richard Dawkins had actually suggested a good basis for right and wrong: "Suffering".
Good and evil would therefore be defined as anti-suffering and pro-suffering, respectively.
On this basis, Torture would be far more wrong than Murder. Homosexuality would be notably good. Homophobia would be particularly evil.
Also on this basis, euthanasia would notably GOOD in the instance of someone dying in pain.
The War on Drugs would certainly be evil. As would the Prison Industrial Complex.
Abortion is subject to debate, as 2 happy, planned kids would be better than 4 unhappy kids. However, there is the aborted to consider. Then the suffering of the mother. Etc. I consider the morality of Abortion to be a legitimate debate.
But yes, once you establish a definition of "right" and "wrong" that is as fundamental as "suffering", then you can logically break down issues on this basis.
First, I'd like to say that the question presented itself in such a way that it can be interpreted in various manners. The key word here is "some". I believe there are some actions that can be logically considered right or wrong, though I pose the question: What is right? What is wrong? Is it an individual truth? Good and evil are decided by fear. We fear robberies, murder, lies... All things that we, certainly not by coincidence, consider "wrong". Something that is "wrong" is that which instills or brings to light the fears of others. Something that is "right" gives a sense of security. Our world is built on these ideas. Our laws are set in place to prevent our fears from coming true. Is this right? It presents us with a feeling of comfort, so I believe so. Of course, there are also things more difficult to judge, lying on the borderline of justice and injustice. While some can be categorized easily, there exist plenty that cannot be labeled as either by logic alone.
What we call 'morality,' is not based in logic and reason. Lots of idiots who know nothing of philosophy run around and do claim that they derived their morality through pure reason, but this is incorrect. Logic and Reason can be used to make sure your 'moral code' is internally consistent, but the basis of what we claim is 'morality' is in moral intuitions, essentially a bunch of gut feelings that we have when we see or experience some action being performed by ourselves or others.
How can we classify something as logically right and wrong if the line between the two is blurred? For instance, the leader of your country asks you to destroy an area of enemy territory, because it houses a large amount of munition, and a substantial amount of enemy forces. You do so, quickly and efficiently. Then later, you realize that along with the munition and troops, you bombed a orphanage, leaving no survivors. Were you right in doing it because the leader of your country asked you too? Or were you wrong because you bombed an orphanage? We can't classify some actions as right or wrong, because they are a bit of both.
For instance, I donate 50 cents to a beggar. It helps him in his
livelihood for a short period of time. But what if he feels so optimistic that he does not need to work but just begging for more money. Everyday, there will be a kind Samaritan giving him money. Then,he is able to make ends meet. Then, he feels that it is not necessary for him to work. So, this is a clear example of the bad effects. Feeling lazy. The good part of it is he is able to survive for another day.