Basis of Morality

MORAL: of or relating to the principles of right and wrong; WRONG: unfair or unjust action; UNFAIR: unjust; UNJUST: unfair
This is where Webster's dictionary leaves us. Not far. If we can determine what is right and what is wrong, then we can define morality. What is "bad"? This initially seems obvious, but isn't quite so after a little inspection. Is death bad? Yes. But without it, there are the problems of no food, overpopulation, etc. Let's be specific and define what can be bad. Actions? Is causing violence bad? Yes, but not in self defense. Is shooting an animal bad? If it's for fun, possibly, but if it's to provide for one's family, it's good. Is lying bad? Yes, unless it is to protect someone from harm or to keep from gossiping. It would seem that for every action there is a good and a bad way to implement it. Then is it the reasoning behind actions? Is motivation what defines good and bad? The previous examples seem to indicate as much. Murder is wrong, but sometimes justice demands it to be done. Even torture, which seems so black, can also shift into the greyscale when it is done to obtain life saving information. So is it motivation behind the action, or is it just the motivation? If I am jealous, but I keep my actions in check, have I done anything wrong? Likewise, if I want to do good, but don't actually do anything about it, have I done anything good? The answers to these questions show that it is a coupling between motivation and action that seems to be the basis of morality. But keep in mind that if there is even one exception to something, it is not an absolute truth. If I work hard at my job, is that a good thing? What if the reason I do so is because there is something that I want to buy for myself? Does that make me working hard at my job wrong because I'm being selfish? I would think not. Also, there are numerous cases in history of good motivations inspiring bad actions (the crusades being the most obvious instance). To look at all the combinations and the contradictions:

good motives and bad actions -crusades=bad, violence done in self defense=good
bad motives and good actions- giving to charity for the recognition=bad, the judge who enjoys sending people to prison=good,

Of course, it would seem obvious that bad motives paired with bad actions lead are bad, and good motives paired with good actions are good. However, the key to this discussion has been left out.

We have been able to hold this discussion because we all know what is right and what is wrong. Of course there will be scenarios that are riding the fence where one person may judge one way, and another will disagree, but for the majority of the time, we are in accordance. Why is this? It could be argued that our sense of morals is based on what we have all been taught. However, given the vast number of civilizations born in this world, all the differing ideology, theology, and culture, I cannot be convinced that we have all been taught the same thing by chance. Another point to this end is that there are infinitely many situations in which moral judgment must be passed, and it is simply not possible that we are all taught how to respond to each of them by our elders.
I find that our sense of morals is exactly that: a sense. Just as all our olfactory senses agree on pleasing and displeasing aromas, just as our aural sense tell us that scraping a chalkboard is not as pleasing as Bach, so our moral sense tells us when something reeks or is satisfying. This explains why there is no set rule without exceptions upon which to base morality. Morality is not based on a system of rules to follow, it is based on innate feelings of satisfaction and dissatisfaction.