There is no right or wrong answers in ethics.

Your reference to utilitarianism is exactly on point with my argument. You ask me how I can tell what a person is thinking and how I know what is morally right or wrong for them, and you're right I cannot. What is right or wrong for any given individual will always be different for all the reasons you have given such as their religion, race, gender, sexual orientation, and what not but that is besides the point. When it comes down to it, when making a decision you have your own set of values and morals that will guide you to choose what you believe in, but that is only what you want to be right. Looking at society as a whole, we are like a machine and when we choose to not work together to attain the greatest good with our important life decisions then we are incomplete and we will not work correctly, but when we choose to see each others views as a whole and collaborate to find what will be best for our society, we will be flush and work smoothly. Now saying that there are no right or wrong decisions is saying that the "machine" will work with or without missing pieces. Well if can work without missing pieces then what is the purpose of having a structured society? With your example of the train and the family or grandmother, I would most definitely want to choose the path to save my grandmother, but there are so many factors telling me otherwise and that to save her would be an act of selfishness. The saying "kill one and save a thousand" is a great example, my grandmother who is an elderly woman, has had her time to live out her dreams as opposed to the family and their children. The right choice would be to save the family because logically they have more to put forth to society and cause more positive, rather than my grandmother whom would not be making any outstanding differences if any. In cases of diseases and murder cases, even then there is still a right and wrong answer. Now quite obviously that answer is not for one person to find out and decide, which is exactly why there is a jury. The decision is made by a group of individuals with no prior bias to the event and in a case like this the defendant is usually sent to a psychiatric ward where they can get help. Now this does not go to say that whatever all the people do is right. If that is so I would be saying that the Holocaust was in a sense the right thing to do. At the time, the decisions were made by one man only and the rest followed without a general consensus of what the people believed they should do. The right that occurred at the time was the decision by other countries to get rid of Hitler, because as a whole they decided it would be best for all people if he no longer had power. A very common example is how we decide who our governor or our president is, we all take a vote to decide who we believe would bring the greatest good to all of our people, and they way we choose is our right path as a whole. With our laws, yes it is true we don't necessarily have to follow them, but they were made by a common need for good and therefore were made as the right actions to take, and we can see them merely as guidelines to what society as a whole needs from us to help attain the greatest good. So if there are no right or answers, then that is saying it is neither right nor wrong to murder someone, steal from someone, or harm another person in any other way. I do not see that being the most ethical way to live.