"Morality" implies good/bad as an intrinsic property and is a primitive version of "you did this and hurt me so you're a 'bad' person". I don't think much about morality in general because IMHO it's overly simplistic in its description of people and not particularly useful.
I don't really consider universal ethics either. It can't be discussed independent of cultural context. For e.g. it's perfectly ethical in traditional Chinese culture to hit your kids to within an inch of their lives, and it's not in modern Western cultures. For female genital mutilation, the cultures that practice it also believe that it's necessary and keeps the girl "pure". Same with religions that practice circumcision. Our ideas of "morals" and "ethics" are simply what we have been exposed to as being "acceptable" and an amalgamation of every type of idea that we've integrated as being "normal" behaviour.
Ethics are also frequently defined as a set of rules that govern behaviour and actions. If it's external rules it's called the law and has punitive consequences. If it's internal rules, personal values are ranked in a certain order set up the boundaries of what we will/will not do. Which value is more important to us determines which ethical rule we are less likely to break.
People make different ethical decisions based on the circumstances surrounding them. We are also
socialised to subconsciously obey authority structures or
to conform and
can easily be primed into making one judgment or another. I don't believe that anyone acts consistently even with the same type of decision in different scenarios, there are too many other factors that we consider at the same time. When in a real dilemma, such situations always feel to be "the exception" where you choose the "least of the 2 evils" and then add on some post hoc justification,
lying to yourself to preserve a self-concept of personal morality. i.e. "I'm not a 'bad' person, it's because of x y z considerations etc."
Very few of us are consistent, even if we state that behaviour is most important, or intentions, or whether something is socially or personally acceptable. These factors are weighed together internally and subconsciously, and then we either act or we don't. Most don't even think about their actions in depth. There's a link here that describes 3 main frameworks that are often used in making ethical decisions:
https://www.brown.edu/academics/science-and-technology-studies/framework-making-ethical-decisions It's kind of described in isolation though. Integrating it with what we know about human psychology (above), the most use that we can get out of it is by trying to be more aware of our considerations/tendencies and by being very deliberate with our choices. Another consideration is the myth of perfect knowledge. No matter our intentions, often, there are other factors that we can't see which dictates outcome.
There are also situations where something can be morally wrong but which I'd judge to be ethically correct, e.g. supporting a stable, oppressive dictatorship that kills off thousands of proponents of democracy, because the alternative is years of civil war and even more death/destruction. We've seen both sides of this dilemma.
