I don't think the distinction between "right act" and "wrong act" only serves to create a class of deviant practices--it certainly also creates a normative class of acceptable practices which lead to approval, nor is it a binary relationship.

If you take a descriptive approach to morality and ethics, instead of starting with the premise that morality and ethics are necessarily prescribed, things are gauged on a range from most right to most wrong; the most right actions are lauded while the most wrong actions reviled. Also: Actions which are socially acceptable may not be considered "right" even by the society in which they occur (and are subsequently accepted), because an act can be defined in several ways, and the uncertainty in words, again, used to justify wrong acts. Mass cognitive dissonance may interfere to make an act like "genocide" be called "crusade." People think genocide is wrong, but crusade acceptable, and thus, the Minitrue prevails. Similar uncertainties of scale occur. Murders are unallowable, but collateral damage is accepted.

I think of "right" and "wrong" as theoretical certainties (and I don't think that a logical fallacy, but perhaps a redefinition of the words), the asymptote to which limited sentience aspires. In practice, people accept wrong acts and revile right ones due to any number of combinations of flawed reasoning, illness, prejudice, misled sentiments, loyalties, et cetera.

As a result, we can never "know" what is wrong, but have a moral and ethical responsibility to make the best approximation possible. Do you really think discourse is as influential as they say? Doesn't that nullify the whole question of morality?

thanks for thinking so hard and making me do the same. my prophecy: i think some guy named alan has your cigarettes.