my basic assumptions of morality

My initial interpretation of "intended impact" was that someone other than myself would be trying to affect me by determining whether or not my behavior is moral. That other person would pass judgement upon my actions and determing the extent of my morality or immorality based on their own individual assumptions of what is right and wrong. The impact is that this person would be trying to make me conform to his/her own moral ideal by trying to impose upon me a sense of guilt or shame. Whether or not I am right or wrong is unimportant, every one has their own opinions and many often follow a similar moral doctrine, often of a religious influence (religion being a cultural influence), which often means that these moral doctrines not often questioned.
"Why does anyone care what makes behavior moral or immoral?" I believe that it goes back to the earliest civilizations. All laws are based upon the moral standards of a culture, and every society must have a system of laws by which it's people must abide in order for that society to function peacefully and flourish. Both laws and morals are meant to be good but they are both reinforced with negative consequences. Where laws are based in an idea of morality and reinforced by the threat of punishment, so are the ideas of morality reinforced by the aforementioned sense of guilt or shame. Do we adhere to our morals only for fear of punishment? When we are taught that doing something, such as lying, is wrong but we do it any way, and we may or may not get caught, but don't we feel guilty any way? What if we were not taught that it was wrong, would we feel guilty then? I'm not trying to say that morality is something that can only be taught, though it is to an extent, but surely there must also be some inherent sense of right and wrong.
What makes behavior right or wrong? I personally believe that morality is a fluid idea that cannot be set in stone and that it is dependent upon the circumstances. We can all agree that killing is wrong, but what are the circumstances? There are many who would argue that killing under any circumstances is wrong, but what if it were in self-defense? There may be a self-righteous individual among you that would even go so far as to argue that it is wrong, even under such a circumstance because you would still be taking a life, but if someone were about to kill you and you let them without offering any defense, wouldn't it be more wrong to facilitate your own murder in order to preserve the life of your murderer? You've killed somebody either way.
We can all agree that certain things are right or wrong, but who really decides that they are for certain? We do. I personally believe that there are no absolutes when it comes to right or wrong until morality is brought into the context of a specific situation.