There are no right and wrong answers in ethics

As children we learn what is right and wrong. We learn by physical or verbal punishment. For example, If were told not to touch the stove top because its hot and it will burn us, as children our curiosity kicks in and we go against what we were told. The punishment in this case is getting injured by the hot stove top. Eventually, we continue to learn through adolescent and early adulthood stages. Since my last argument, I stated what Thomas Hobbes thought about human beings and how evil we are. So if were evil, and we know what is wrong then punishment should occur right? We see that if someone commits a crime, the law takes effect and the offender is punished. Punishment happens to be what i think constructs the issue of right and wrong. If were right about something or we participate in right doings then someone or multiple people will acknowledge, praise us. On the hand if we do any wrong doing were punished for it. So when you go against the topic of not having right and wrong ethics, then whats the point of punishment. Why is punishment the cause of wrong doings, why punishment don't account for right doings. Any one who goes against not having right and wrong ethics should not be experiencing punishment at any point in their lives, but since everyone does experience this, then there has to be right and wrong ethics. As humans I believe were born into sin, were born to be selfish, stingy, mean at times, I agree with Hobbes on this portion of his argument. Locke believed were not born with so much evil as Hobbes thought, but Locke never was one sided on the issue. Locke believed that we were bad, but we as good people would not let the bad ruin the good we have inside us. In my opinion it doesn't matter how good and bad you truly are, because anyone in survival mode, especially with children will do anything in their power to survive. In this case people will steal, kill, etc. to get what they need, and even though its for a good purpose, its still wrong to commit crime towards another. State of Nature prohibits acts of violence. We gave up our freedom of committing harm to someone. Since our privilege of not harming or causing danger to someone exists, then punishment will be accounted for if act of violence is presented. The governments does have a say so in this issue as well because they are the ones who protects, secure, and honor the State of Nature. There is a right and wrong ethic in today's society, and I believe people will only turn towards this ethic of right and wrong when something they believe is unfair to them happens, then this rule of good and bad will be presented. As a psychology major, we are taught that people only speak up or educate themselves when something that's unfair to them happens and they want "justice". In this case justice means equality, absence of bias, protecting your freedom. Social Justice, which matters a lot in this topic is right and wrong. A lot of theorists and people have different inputs on social justice, but I believe its how people obey this ethic. If you think there's no right and wrong, then why does punishment exist. If you think right and wrong do exist, is it because you had to use this ethic to get social justice for yourself, or do you truly believe like i do there is a such thing as right and wrong.