not me - but what i am saying is that if it is up to the individual to decide what is right and wrong - even in collective groups - it isnt really right or wrong - only accepted
You are right to a certain degree - that right and wrong in groups is not really right and wrong merely what is accepted and in the case of countries, the law. It highlighted that when the law changes, our thoughts on what is right and wrong suddenly changes, even though before it could have been totally different. Although I accept our views do not always change when laws change, but it does in the most part / occasions.

However - I won't explain it because that is getting into too much Sartre which my brain won't handle at this point in time - when an individual chooses an action and deems it right or wrong - at that point the action is right or wrong.

And at some point in the near future I will message you and try and explain myself properly, I promise.

BP -
Oh and compassion IS universal so we still got that.
That is where I thought you implied it is there in everyone, as in universal. And indeed you saying that it is a 'human trait' also is giving credit to the argument that compassion is there in us and it is a form of human nature. Sure some might not have compassion, but really they should.

I fundamentally disagree with that, a trait such as compassion is nothing but individuals choice to actively be compassionate, consistently. The fact that many people choose this way, doesn't make the situation universal or a human trait, it merely means lots of individuals are compassionate.

Sure the environment you are brought up in makes a difference to some of your choices - especially the society and parenting you receive - but that does not mean that people are broken from their condemnation to be free. They can still choose the opposite, they can still go against their environment and upbringing, they still have a free choice, albeit a slightly slanted one. The fact many people choose the same way in a society is due to this slanting. The relative strength of the conditioning is related to the strength of societies feelings for that action. For instance monogamy is thought of highly in the western society and actually legislated in favour of, thus our choice is slanted to support this, but we can still choose the opposite - and some do. However other issues, like wearing clothes which are not too revealing, are influenced by society but not to the extent of an issue such as monogamy. Thus more people choose the opposite.

The fact society influences the choice does not mean that the choice is not free and that there is suddenly a human nature - no it simply means that we can be swayed in our choices more than Sartre admitted.

Also I am not saying everything is caused by your choices, obviously there are things out of your control such as the environment you are brought up in and your DNA, but this does not mean there is a human nature and that everyone has specific traits. Far from it.

Human nature is rubbish. There is no such thing as a common emotional or characteristic trait which is common to everyone. The only human nature that there is comes from DNA - and I am sure this is not the form of human nature you refer to.