I believe that it is practically impossible to systematically and consistently assign utility to world states. I believe that utility can not even be grounded and therefore defined. I don't think that there exists anything like "human preferences" and therefore human utility functions, apart from purely theoretical highly complex and therefore computationally intractable approximations. I don't think that there is anything like a "self" that can be used to define what constitutes a human being, not practically anyway. I don't believe that it is practically possible to decide what is morally right and wrong in the long term, not even for a superintelligence.

Strange stuff.

Surely "right" and "wrong" make the most sense in the context of a specified moral system.

If you are using those terms outside such a context, it usually implies some kind of moral realism - in which case, one wonders what sort of moral realism you have in mind.