I assert that morality, the internal compass for right and wrong, is personal. It cannot be a shared or be community standard simply because we all have different priorities, and those priorities change from day to day with our lives. When I was a teenager, I had questionable and flexible moral standards. As I grew, became a man and assumed adult responsibilities, my internal compass changed. Get married, quit chasing random women. A father, well, there go most of the toys and self-indulgent hobbies. Personal priorities are a constantly shifting patchwork and cannot be shared with the whole community.
Collective morality is a myth, or at least a mislabeling of an observed standard of conduct. If morality is internalized than community standards are ethical, external standards, enforced either by community disapproval or codified as law and punishable as such. Any conduct that is forced or enforced cannot be moral, there is no choice other than obedience or punishment. The act is simply avoidance of punishment or defiance.
There is a tendency of communities of similar standards to raise children to reflect their beliefs and standards of conduct. Christians raise their children, with varied success, to whatever standards are derived from their version of Christianity. Jews, the same, depending on their sect, or Islam. Living in the northeast, I have the handy example of the Amish. A strict sect that will expel anyone who violates the precepts of their faith and community. What the children learn from their community is what will become their internalized moral standard. It is impossible for everyone to share the same world view and priorities. If nothing else is applied, the perceived rank within a family is different Father, mother, children by age and talent.
At best, the collective standard can be the mores, customs and conventions that when viewed externally, can roughly define what a community believes. Further division occurs in different communities or subcultures. What comparisons can be made between urban and suburban cultures; nations differ significantly as well. Is there a universal standard for good and evil? Is it possible to achieve a single standard when there are cultures that believe everyone who does not share their beliefs is wrong and somehow lesser? Sadly, the answer is no. As long as one group rejects the foundational beliefs of equality, a universal definition of good and evil will be impossible.
In “Famine, affluence and morality”, (Singer 1974), Singer argues that it is a moral requirement to send any excess funds to support charities. The argument is based on an equivalence argument that breaks down once past the benefactor/recipient stage. If you send your funds as food support to an obscure African village, the chances are fairly high that the local strongman will benefit more than the intended recipient. Singer simply created a logic box and excludes the reality of his proposition. If we shift our perspective along the layers of interaction, the different moral and ethical standards are obvious
The affluent feel obligated to provide for those less fortunate, either from altruism or self-aggrandizement. Starting from the doner, the desire to donate excess funds, an obvious first world problem, comes from a need for recognition.
The New Word Wars 