[Kilroy_x]

You really don't get it, do you? The "wrongness" of something doesn't need to be contained in it. Something can be wrong simply because I don't want it! Does a persons desire have so sort of higher justification? Probably not, but the better answer is: who cares?

Ultimately, the grand morality seen in this way is just the interaction between all moralities. When a person is killed who did not want to be killed, this is an infringement upon their individual morality. When a person knows of this death while considering murder immoral this infringes upon him as well, perhaps. We can assume that the vast majority of people don't like murder, so this is our frame of reference for tools in moral calculation. Oh, but we run into excesses of problems when we give peoples emotions sovereign rights as well as their existence, so perhaps we should only treat things as immoral when they have direct effect on something tangible and coherent owned by the person: their body or their property.

To repeat the question: How can an aspect of morality which creates no direct interactions with other moralities (which is to say with other people), infringe upon anything tangible or coherent in a way that would make an action criminal?