Right vs Wrong

In nature what happens is often what is right. Larger bodies draw smaller masses to themselves, water freezes at zero Celsius and becomes ice and energy in a given system declines order turns towards chaos. You will never get a panel with mathematicians arguing both sides of the 1+1=2 equation because there is only one answer. Scientists will debate outcomes of experiments and conclusions, but not the physics and math which describes the natural world. Facts are facts. Nature exists as a single system with a set of given and immutable laws. You may not like it but if you disagree with what is known and can't prove otherwise with legitimate experiment then too bad you are wrong. That is the world of math and science.
So our world is governed by natural laws that are unalterable, but our society by man made laws which can't claim such distinction. In short, men make mistakes and so such laws as men make are subject to error. In the past they worked around this problem. The Laws that were promulgated and enforced by kings/priests were seen as divine. They were either directly handed to man from God(s) or inspired  by Him/Them. The perfect or in some cases just vastly superior God(s) gave us law that were to be considered on par with natural laws or at least better than man could come up with and so should not be questioned. In joining the Law to the superior we avoid any notion of error that the involvement of man may suggest.
Let us add to the confusion, every human society creates its' own laws or adopts them from the outside to meet their needs. This creates multiple systems with both unique and generic laws adapted to need. These perfect Laws would come into conflict throughout our history. Successful nations passed their cultures forward to the present laws included. What is a better mark of perfection than success.
The science of evolution indicates that species success is dependent on it's ability out compete other within a given environment. The better adapted to your niche the greater your chances of survival. That is science again. An outcome derived from natural law.
As God(s)declined as the guarantor of law, we turned to science as an explanation for what is right and what was wrong. We applied scientific method as an arbiter of right and wrong and that was a mistake. Science requires a single system with universal laws. In the face of multiple systems what we ended up with were not laws that were best, just the laws that happen to attached to the most successful society. It is fair to say that good laws lead to more successful nations, but we can argue what it means to succeed. Is superiority measured in economics,war perhaps justice?
This brings us to into the realm of ideology. Our society is a melange of competing thought systems. Each system has unique and overlapping "natural laws" governing their processes. While traits are shared by those systems closest to each other, ideologies are still closed off. Each thought system has to obey the basic rules that govern them. It is why a Conservative will oppose big government but accept a large military. These two ideas are not inconsistent, a conservative accepts that you need a large military in order to protect property, in the form of the nation, which is a legitimate responsibility of Government. A liberal typically supports larger government. A liberal supports affirmative action but is opposed to racial discrimination, seemingly opposite positions. This support is predicated on the principle that government has a duty to aid its' citizen by ensuring access to opportunity. The conservative and liberal come from different places though it is accepted that they aim towards the same end, a better nation and more prosperous citizens. They just don't agree on the same route. They both have a claim to "right" and are, within their respective thought systems.
It should be noted that social/economic standing , race/ethnicity and general experience will dictate your ideological leaning. A person of wealth can't be faulted for supporting a position that secures their fortune anymore that an immigrant might be decried for looking to a party that supports their interests.
Right and wrong breaks down into individual interests, not usually on the big questions of theft or killing, though some cultures have different approaches. You won't find a conservative and a liberal differing on the issue of whether murder is ok or not. They will differ however in the response. That is often how ideology works. It is how we address issues of the day that set us apart.
It is then impossible to assign a right and a wrong because we are dealing with different systems with unique rules and perspective. Anyone proclaiming the "rightness" of their position should be required to do so in an expansive way, because it is not enough to assert a position without showing your the work. If you are trying to show higher lower taxes are the root to prosperity you have to prove it. So when comparing between two exclusive systems you do need a ruler. I use the notion of general good when deciding whether to support a position or not. Again we will face a problem of what yardstick is used to measure fitness. In the end we are stuck with the only reliable measure of judgement, voting. Reliable because we get a decision  though of course not necessarily the right one.