There is a commonplace book argument,
Which glibly glides from every vulgar tongue
When any dare a new light to present:
'If you are right, then everybody's wrong.'
Suppose the converse of this precedent
So often urged, so loudly and so long:
'If you are wrong, then everybody's right.'
Was ever everybody yet so quite?

Right is right if nobody is right, and wrong is wrong if everybody is wrong.

Most people go through life assuming that we’re right about everything all the time and that people who don’t see things our way are wrong. We mistake how we want the world to be with how it actually is. The subject doesn’t matter: we’re right about politics, other people, our memories; you name it. We mistake what we believe for the true facts.
Of course, we can’t be right about everything all the time. Everyone makes mistakes or misremembers some things. But we still want to feel right all the time, and ideally get other people to reinforce that feeling. Hence, we channel inordinate amounts of energy to proving to others — or ourselves — that we’re right. When this happens, we’re less concerned with outcomes and more concerned with protecting our egos.

See, if evolution is true, who owns the world? Who makes the rules? How do we decide right from wrong? If man is God, and that's what humanism means, there is no absolute standard. How do you tell right from wrong? I mean, maybe Osama Bin Laden should tell right from wrong for everybody. Maybe congress should decide. Maybe Bill Clinton ought to decide. "Right and wrong? Never heard of that before." How do you tell right from wrong? Where are the rules?

Who is right and who is wrong? No one! But if you are alive — live: tomorrow you’ll die as I might have died an hour ago. And is it worth tormenting oneself, when one has only a moment of life in comparison with eternity?

Of those who want us to be wrong and those who want us to be right.

Nobody is right and nobody is wrong. Only one thing is right, and that is the Truth, but nobody knows what it is. It is a thing that changes all the time, and then comes back to the same thing. -Old Yao

If there is no difference between right and wrong, how can Hitler be wrong and how can we be right? Why are we at war, if it is not because right is more precious than life?

What all agree upon is probably right; what no two agree in most probably is wrong.

When every one is wrong, then every one is right.

Few persons are prevented from thinking themselves right by the reflection that, if they be right, the rest of the world is wrong.

Suppose you and I have had an argument. If you have beaten me instead of my beating you, then
are you necessarily right and am I necessarily wrong? If I have beaten you instead of your beating me, then
am I necessarily right and are you necessarily wrong? Is one of us right and the other wrong? Are both of us
right or are both of us wrong? If you and I don't know the answer, then other people are bound to be even
more in the dark. Whom shall we get to decide what is right? Shall we get someone who agrees with you to
decide? But if he already agrees with you, how can he decide fairly? Shall we get someone who agrees with
me, how can he decide? Shall we get someone who disagrees with both of us? But if he already agrees with
both of us, how can he decide? Shall we get someone who agrees with both of us? But if he already agrees
with both of us, how can he decide? Obviously, then, neither you nor I nor anyone else can know the answer.
Shall we wait for still another person?

It's not given to people to judge what's right or wrong. People have eternally been mistaken and will be mistaken, and in nothing more than in what they consider right and wrong.

When you look closely it is a question whether that which is a wrong to the present community may not prove to have been a right to the interests of posterity. That sounds a little foggy; but I will make my meaning more clear when I say that I think right and wrong are both tools which are being wielded by those great hands which are shaping the destinies of the universe, that both are making for improvement; but that the action of the one is immediate, and that of the other more slow, but none the less certain. Our own distinction of right and wrong is founded too much upon the immediate convenience of the community, and does not inquire sufficiently deeply into the ultimate effect.