First emotionally. How do I "feel" about something. Then I try to look at from a big picture, get objective as I can. And then I try to determine the rightness or wrongness of said thing.

Willingly hurting someone for self beneficiary reasons is wrong, and by pain I mean dishing out something on someone which evidently makes their survival instinct react. To me, pain and the intent to cause it can't be argued. This also goes for emotional and psychological abuse, either directly or through physical pain or abuse. To know and be aware that you're dealing any kind of serious pain unto someone for whatever reason is wrong, even if it's revenge or hatred. Where it gets complicated is if the person can't help but hurt others, or genuinely perceive their actions as defense or survival in society. It starts getting pretty relative all over the place if you discuss emotional pain and wrong doing, but I do believe that emotions are primordial and instinctive, and there's no arguing with their results, and so, if someone is suffering depression or suicidal tendencies or their lives are completely unbalanced and thrown out the window through evident hostile abuse of any kind by another human being, then to me it's wrong. I'm not really talking about relationship breakups and stuff like that, but things like sexual abuse, domestic abuse or disputes, more direct examples like those. War, oppression or taking advantage of the weak with one's own intelect. Sometimes the people don't mean to hurt those around them, but many times I'm convinced that if it's not their sole intent, then they don't care what will happen. People don't have to care about anyone, but in this case don't go out of your way to hurt them. A lot of it is conditioned behaviour and subconscious reaction I know, but being aware exists just as much, and that's where I draw someone as worthless and inhuman. As far as right goes, to me that's even more complicated, and aside from natural motherly or fatherly love for a child, apathy is probably the most ''right'' thing I can think of. It's hard foe me to believe that the general definition of what most of us see right to be is genuinely practiced by many, without ulterior motives which completely contradict and defy the definition of things like trust, compassion, generosity and the like. Hey I named three words for what right and good might be, I'm not that much of a pessimist. XD Right and wrong are too relative for me to judge ''something'' by it, but it gets way easier if it's governed by human hands and mind. I like or I don't like something, but as far as people goes, I hope I'm just really closed minded more then correct. I judge by intial and natural reaction, otherwise i just don't. Or try not to anyways. XD

Another major difference in the approach to ethical problems revolves around the question of absolute good as opposed to relative good. Throughout the history of philosophy thinkers have sought an absolute criterion of ethics. Frequently moral codes have been based on religious absolutes. Immanuel Kant, in his categorical imperative, attempted to establish an ethical criterion independent of theological considerations. Rationalists (Plato, Baruch Spinoza, Josiah Royce) founded their ethics on a metaphysics. Among ethical theories debated in the first half of the 20th cent. were instrumentalism (John Dewey), for which morality lies within the individual and is relative to the individual’s experience; emotivism (Sir Alfred J. Ayer), wherein ethical considerations are merely expressions of the subjective desires of the individual; and intuitionism (G. E. Moore), which postulates an immediate awareness of the morally good. Agreeing with Moore that the morally good is directly apprehended through intuition, deontological intuitionists (H. A. Prichard, W. D. Ross) went on to distinguish between good and right and to argue that moral obligations are intrinsically compelling whether or not their fulfillment results in some greater good. http://www.bartleby.com/65/et/ethics.html Ethics is that branch of philosophy deals with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions. Some philosophers prefer conscience to ethics of a society. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscience

By not giving free rein to my own agenda or motives.

By the word of God.

Great question! (I wish I could give you more 'points'): This has been the ongoing question of *all* of the endeavors of philosophy & literature from the beginning of human thought and inquisition. Its a question asked everyday, in "an examined life" (Socrates). And one which contains its own many answers.