I don't believe there is such a thing as right or wrong. — Unlucky Devil

That's not exactly a unique stance on these forums. Plenty of criticism of objective morality is around.

As I see it there are only actions and every individual will either agree with the action making it good/right to them or disagree with the action making it evil/wrong — Unlucky Devil

Morality is certainly related, on a fundamental level, to personal preference. However, humans are also fundamentally social and care about their groups. I think it is also hard to deny that people treat moral convictions differently from mere personal preferences. I think it follows that morality is a different kind of preference where we treat ourselves not as individuals, but as representations of the entire group.

My overall point is that morality is flexible dependent on our understanding of a persons acts and the context in which they are carried out. — Unlucky Devil

I think it's pretty obvious that any moral judgement would rely on accurate information. So do all other judgements. So when you say that this means morality doesn't "technically exist", it seems like you view morality as some exact catalogue of actions. Like the ten commandments, or perhaps even more specific. That is not the only way to approach the topic though. You can, for example also view morality as a method analogous to the scientific method. But where the scientific methods seeks to provide accurate predictions, the moral method would seek to provide accurate guidelines towards a social goal.

Moral convictions are personal preferences. I have no qualms in denying incongruences to that. In truth, everything is personal preference. Though, preference is just another way of saying conditioning.

While views on morality can be as diverse as the day is long, I hold that most views can be classified as either hypocritical or non-hypocritical 95% of the time.

Would you like someone to steal, injure, or otherwise destroy something of yours? Probably not. Now if you believe it would be OK to do so to an innocent other simply because they're from another place or hold a different system of beliefs, that's a hypocritical view of morality.

There are exceptions. Maybe you're a masochist or feel guilty for belongings you do have and don't mind being injured or robbed from. Seemingly it would appear I'm stating if that was the case you can do so without your view of morality being hypocritical.

We all have an inherent sense of pain and in a way right or wrong. What makes us happy, what makes us sad or angry. Most of the time. Save for psychopaths or sociopaths and other unique minds of that nature.

The story you bring up is interesting because even under a normal mindset and after applying empathy (ie. "what if I were that person?") many questions arise and circumstances and factors that may or may not have been mentioned in the story or exist in most peoples understanding of it. Example, what if you're thinking as the rich person. Maybe you struggled your whole life and been through hell to get it after applying yourself literally every waking moment and yourself planned to give it to the poor only using your knowledge to ensure they actually develop themselves and hold on to their money. Maybe the poor people in that story are poor because the were the worst of criminals responsible for inconceivable amounts of bloodshed and human misery. Maybe they're just drug addicts. Maybe Robin Hood was just looking for a tax write off. Or to be "that hero", which as you can see, we still talk about to this day. Maybe they were poor because they were misguided and if you just drop them money and leave without teaching them how to manage it properly, said monies will just get spent on drugs, hookers, or one-off experiences leaving them worse off than before. Or someone will just rob them. Maybe it just went to fund ISIS. Nobody knows. There's 1,000 questions to be asked even with some attempted "standard" of morality based on something reliably observable and intrinsic to us all.

While views on morality can be as diverse as the day is long, I hold that most views can be classified as either hypocritical or non-hypocritical 95% of the time. — Outlander

That’s an interesting way to look at morality, but unless you’re willing to somehow assert that it is right/wrong to be hypocritical, this doesn’t say anything interesting. You’ve successfully separated most actions into two groups, but aren’t able to say which group is good/bad.

Now if you believe it would be OK to do so to an innocent... — Outlander

There is still some relativity involved in this as well, because not everyone will agree who is innocent, and who is not. Some may believe that holding a different system of beliefs means you’re not innocent. Therefore it wouldn’t be hypocritical, right?

Imagine two versions of the world identical with the exception of one difference. In version A, a child is being tortured, her head being slowly crushed in a vice. In version B, she is happy and healthy, swinging on a swingset with friends. Is one of these versions of the world better than the other? Is this simply a question of my preferences, my conditioning, or anything like that?

but unless you’re willing to somehow assert that it is right/wrong to be hypocritical, this doesn’t say anything interesting. You’ve successfully separated most actions into two groups, but aren’t able to say which group is good/bad. — Pinprick

I'm not willing. My point was if you would volunteer yourself to be strapped to a chair or otherwise in a controlled society and I do various things to you, you and anyone in such a position will quickly find out what's "good" and "bad".

Therefore the ideas of good/evil or right/wrong do not technically exist — Unlucky Devil

That doesn't follow. All you can conclude is that what you think is right or wrong depends on what you know.