Bold: (But I think, if people give it some thought, they are capable of distinguishing what it is about certain actions that makes them immoral or moral - according to them, that is.)

I dispute that in the idea that if you remove morality from the equation and instead look at its compositional DNA of Philosophy you are capable of finding what lead people to their moral statements and also find exactly what you dont think is possible: An Absolute Truth. There are always things that are right and wrong, regardless of what people think. There is always one, Single Truth. Everything else is lies and misinterpretations.

This is what I am interested in, and I know I may not have explained it well; I want people to think about the things they think are wrong and right and define why they feel that way. If someone has a consistent view of what makes something 'right' or 'wrong' surely they would be able to put the distinction into words.

I agree. Rights and Wrongs can be found as long as you find hard, absolute answers to questions: Philosophies. If you can find absolute methods of logic, those are undisputable. Thats just... True. Now if people did think about why they think things, which we have both done I believe, then they will find the errors in their own logic, but depending on their personalities, if what they find doesnt agree with them they may go into fits of ignorant rage and just disagree entirely with soemthing due to the end result. Fate, for example. Or Fatal Cancer Diagnosis. Something you certainly do not want to hear and may directly retaliate to. Unless you can show people absolute methods of undisputable logic, theyll just weigh things wrongly or disagree with it due to its outcome and lack of absolution.

What provisions are made for the rights of criminals, and is the treatment of animals not also encompassed in your morality? Additionally, many people occasionally discard some rights of certain parties in some situations: for example, some people do not think it is immoral to beat an unruly child, or kill a murderer. These actions both violate rights, not some people still consider them moral.

When I talk of positively constructive philosophies, I mean ones that work for your species. However, we do acknowledge the existence and Semi-Sentientness of our animal friends. However, Animals would be weighed far less than that of actually human brothers or should be at the least. As for criminals, they remove their own rights, or some of them, by reducing their own values in the equation, both theoretically and poetically. As for the other part of your statement, These unruly children should not be beaten, I would argue that people who consider this moral are wrong, and I would gladly kill a murderer if it meant making me the murderer and saving someone else. I have killed to greatly reduce an evil and have permanently removed the rights of someone who has already permanently removed the rights of potentially more than one. It is an overally better act, one that makes meta-economical sense. So its about correctly weighing the value of people who commit wrongs to begin with. Its kind of like a quadratic equation that always approaches zero but never quite reaches it, you know? There will always be that smidgen of evil left over. One could even use the old paradox: If a great, Threatening Evil exists that cannot be defeated by just means, do you use evil to destroy evil, or remain steadfastly just and be consumed by the evil? I argue that you use evil, for that evil always, always has the choice of being less evil or good in the end. Me Killing a murderer in the act to save a life. Evil to defeat an evil, but Im not evil persay, now am I? I weighed the life of the innocent as more than the person Im killing, a murderer who was ready to forfeit his rights for his own selfish means.

It makes sense. Economically. And thats all we have, isnt it? Our systems of the world to comfort us at night, hold us tight and never let go till one of us snaps one way or another? Sigh.

Also, can you restate your question in the second paragraph? Im not sure I quite understood or answered it sufficiently.

I have been working on my own definition and honestly, there are just too many ambiguous terms to define, like 'rights', to give an example you used - what rights does every person have? So you have to read every person's definition with the knowledge that they probably have at least some idea in their head of what constitutes a victim, or a right, and so on, and that there is only so many terms you can define without turning it into a novel. Not that the topic of subjective morality doesn't deserve a novel, but that the challenge right now is to keep it both short and consistent.

A couple questions his definition brings up for me concern accidental injuries, punishment for someone who has done something wrong, and eating animals for food. All create victims, but he may not necessarily consider them immoral.

One would have to be able to weigh whether or not a direct action, or lack thereof, is worthy of its cost and benefits. In your example, is his lack of action going to affect more people than his own death? In my opinion, it is better to save the two men than the one incredibly obese man because if the obese man chose to save these two men, their lives must be worth something or be of some importance, more than his own. Also, simply by committing this selfless act, the obese man has increased the value of his own life and person, at least in relation to others who are not selfless. In an entirely selfless, purely fantastical world, which this one is not currently not mind you, this man's action wouldnt be acknowledged because no one's actions mean anything in terms of adding or losing abstract moral weight. Thereofore, in the perfect, preferable world, this man would do it regardless and be thought of as nothing more than what he was already. Therefore, The man's action is weightless in essence. SO, its better to save the two men in action than it is to passively allow them to die on the face of the scenario. In basis, your scenario is a question of whether or not the obese man's action holds enough weight to which I say no, it does not for the reasons I gave above.