"right" can mean different things to different people,

I've just argued against that. This is going in circles.

Didn't you just agree that the algorithm for sorting things into "right" and "not right" is different in different in different people? Are we really going to have to taboo "means" now?

if it the argument goes nowhere, I'm comfortable with him doing Killer::right, and me doing Manfred::right, and then I'll hit him with a big stick.

What if you are really wrong? What if you are the guy who is rounding the slave owners "property" and dutifully returning them to him?

Then I'm wrong about some fact that I used in translating my morality into actions, e.g. skin color determines intelligence.
Hmm. Actually, it looks like things get complicated here because of human mutability - we can be persuaded of either a thing or its opposite in different conditions. So I really do have to stick with morality as the algorithm itself and not some run of it if I want consistency (though that's not strictly necessary).