I think you frame the question in a way that presumes some things that aren't necessarily so. You assume that (1) there is some objective "right" that is "out there" to be discovered and probably that (2) if you don't immediately locate this "right" it necessarily means terrible things will follow.

Morality is an imperfect work product of society. It is an informal consensus of how best to achieve the sort of society most of us want for ourselves. Hopefully that consensus centers around a just, respectful, peaceful, stable and civil society for all and is based on empathy and a mature, long-range view of rational self-interest.

Your view of things like justice, fairness, inclusiveness, mercy, empathy, and love will evolve and you will make mistakes as you evolve (mistakes being, as they are, the main source of feedback about how to improve). This is to be expected.

Be kind, gentle and forbearing; have clearly stated and politely enforced interpersonal boundaries; focus on helping others, and you can't go very wrong.

Each according to their need. Some need less leaning toward family teaching and more experience... Some, the other way around. Emotions and emotional well being play a part too.

Perhaps a bad analogy but try this...

Two men looked out from prison bars, One saw the mud, the other saw stars.

No two people learn the same way. Some, unfortunately, don't learn at all.

Ah yes, the eternal question. Depends on how deep you want to go, I guess. When it comes to what's right for the individual, I would say whatever causes the least amount of needless suffering to others around you. When its what's right for a group, I would say whatever causes the least suffering to the group or the greatest benefit to the group. Probably simplistic, but it goes along with "don't do anything to others you don't want done to yourself" (or take it further, and say what THEY don't want done to THEMSELVES)
Look up Alex O' Connor's conversation on Objective morality with Stephen Woodford