So what becomes of wrong?

It means that the action contravenes a moral code or ethical precept.

But I'm sure you weren't looking for some kind of a dictionary definition. No doubt you're looking more for a functionalist answer. But I'm not sure I can give you one of those. If you believe that "right" and "wrong" are merely labels that society places on certain actions that it either likes or dislikes, then it really doesn't mean a whole lot to say that something is "wrong." It just means the same thing as saying "society disapproves of that." That's little different from an aesthetic choice. In that case, "that action isn't right" is on par with a statement like "that wallpaper isn't right."

If, on the other hand, morality is more than just the society's collective judgment on whether something is desirable or undesirable, then saying that something is "wrong" may very well be a meaningful statement. It all comes down to whether or not you buy the notion that objective morality is possible.

It could be, though I would question the use of the word "just."

WRONG brings to mind 'pain'.

If you want to know whether something is 'wrong' to another, put pain in the mix...
There are so MANY synonyms to 'right and wrong' that it could be discussed as long as there is.... ises.
What will a person tolerate
" a community demand
" parents put up with...
THEY name it 'right and wrong', and we understand what they mean, why fight it?

To demonstrate how subjective right and wrong are, just cruise A2K in threads about capital punishment or abortion.

Unless, of course, one of the religions are right, in which case the particular religion's "right" and "wrong" are objectively so.

I'm thinking I may have missed the question. Maybe what people mean when they say "wrong" is... "objectively wrong", the strength of the reaction may be because they are aware they can't prove that, and attempt to compensate by strengthening the position with emotion, to avoid rational exploration of the consequences of the lack of objective truth.

Just a theory.

Mcharcoal. I don't want anyone to think I am actively fighting the concepts of right and wrong, I believe the concept of morality is possibly the most important linchpin that holds our society together, and I would not want it destroyed.
My argument is similar to that of Nietzsche's, that right and wrong are not innate values, but man made concepts. Through time, humans thought they were discovering, but in fact they were inventing. Values cannot be found in the world objectively, but that is all the more reason to endow our existance WITH value.

I think Eorl has a very interesting point.
I think emotion plays a large part in defining wrong.
And although I believe the concept of morality is socially constructed, I don't believe that so many people live under a belief of innate values as a result of pure conditioning.
Anylising 'wrong' as simply a word that gives bad social kudos when used to define an action seems a ridiculous. It is removed from context, and I think a large part of that context is the pain that humans suffer, and the empathy that other humans feel towards them.

Perhaps, to further your theory, Eorl, I might posit:
Right and wrong ARE emotions.
Perhaps, instead of USING emotion to strengthen a moral stance or position or avoid explaining things rationally. Humans FEEL the emotion first, express it as wrong, and then try and explain it rationally (sometimes failing.)
These emotions are not pure, perhaps, but built on or comprised of a mixture of many other emotions.
It would explain a lot about society, why debates about moral issues become so passionate.

I'd be interested to know what anyone else thought.
I still like the idea that the fact that someone can't prove something may lead them to express it as wrong. (As in they can't prove that abortion is objectively wrong, but feel it is, so compensate with strength of emotion.)
I don't know, I need to think this over somewhat.
Interesting all the same.

From time to time I have used a version of the following to determine right and wrong. Each and every topic has a value assigned that can vary broadly among individuals participating in the exercise:

What constitutes sin? (Or in this case 'wrong')?

1. Elbows on the dinner table
2. Chewing gum
3. Failure to say please or thank you as appropriate
4. Dressing in appropriately for an occasion
5. Using swear words
6. Reading or watching risque material
7. Jay walking when there is no traffic on the street
8. Littering
9. Disposing of a small amount of polluting substance in lake or stream
10. Oogling men or women
11. Flirting
12. Stealing paper clips, pens, postage stamp or other small items from work.
13. Drinking alcohol
14. Drinking and driving on seldom traveled country road
15. Drinking and driving on the freeway
16. Cheating at cards
17. Shoplifting small items
18. Cheating on your boyfriend/girlfried
19. Cheating on your fiance
20. Cheating on your spouse
21. One night stands
22. Sex on a first date
23. Sex on later dates
24. Sex before marriage

Etc. etc. etc.

The lists are organized better than the above so that you gradually start with something quite innocuous that could be in any way controversial and move up the line to self defense versus assault and battery or manslaughter or murder or worse.

And it is amazing how many people will score different things differently.

Ultimately, society will go with the general trends or sense of right and wrong shared by the majority. And, as most of us know, such trends are not static and change from generation to generation.