It's all about perspective and perception.
What is right to you may go against the moral, or even legal, grain of someone else. And what you perceive as wrong may in fact be the only way for someone else.
Assigning 'right' and 'wrong' designations to ordinary circumstances skews their effectiveness when it is important. There are essential 'good' and 'not good' options, such as kill or don't kill. While taking a life can entirely be in a person's hands, it isn't a decision that is theirs to make. Life should always be chosen, because they are precious.
And yet, even in some cases the definition of life is questionable. So by the assignation of 'good' in the above I have removed even the possibility that it could be right to end a life.
An example would be a fetus that is killing its mother, and would not survive birth regardless of medicine, excluding a provision that God exists and would perform a miracle. Would you chose to save the life you know will survive, or would you allow both to die? What if that person were you, or your wife, or your child? How would that affect how right it would be?
Because, you see, we have to make decisions that should merely be referred to as what they are: decisions. Extreme situations call for extreme decisions, and at that point right and wrong should be striven for. In commonplace it is assumed that your parents did their job and raised you correctly, and you know the difference between accidents and hurting others. You should count your options as 'good', 'better', or 'best' and strive for the best possible outcome for everyone.