The general body of members of the peer group of influence are the moral arbitors over the time and territory wherein they exist.
This could be referred to as two different things:
1. Democracy.
2. Mob Rules.
All depends on context I suppose?
My contention is that morals (what behaviors are right or wrong) are almost ENTIRELY subjective. Factors such as time period, culture, religious beliefs, species, and vested interests all play a role in the subjectivity of morals.
This sounds more like social 'mores'. (mor-rays)
It seems the big ones are fairly objective. There is a large consensus that murder is wrong and stealing is wrong. Lying and adultery have become acceptable in mainstream society. They still cause a good deal of harm to other people. I am not certain covetousness was ever all that unpopular? But it rarely motivates people to higher-living charitable acts. Children obeying their parents is generally a good thing. Unless the parents are amoral/immoral.
The standards do vary among societies and over time. Which basically guarantees all but one of them at the most is getting some of it wrong. Or can something actually be right at one time and place but then wrong at another (murder??) really be the case? Are you willing to forgive acts against you that you believe you should be able to perform without moral guilt? Surely a code of morality should be consistent and fair to all.
The basis for morals developing is coexistance and in essence, what morals are are rules for living together.
Laws are good for this. Mostly needed because too many people lack morals.
Peace