A computer can easily know right from wrong to the degree most humans are capable of (and too often they aren't very sophisticated at that) even today. But it's safe to assume that that ARM processor has no conscious awareness. Conscious awareness is simply the feeling of observing things, a feeling we assume the machines we've built do not have, for example.
Humans adapt to the moral system of their society. There is no set of "universal morals" that all humans have.
But do realise this, since I'm not a moral relativity apologist. I'm going to say that moral systems are not equal and some backward societies need to get their systems fixed.
Have you read the god delusion by Dawkins? There he takes on just that myth - there has been a very good body of research in presenting people with the same set of moral conundrums - every race and culture, even "primitive" have indistinguishable moral responses. (Obviously individual variance was high)
That is of course a big philosophical question. But in lieu of diving into that, because Wikipedia says so:
Conscience is an aptitude, faculty, intuition or judgment of the intellect that distinguishes right from wrong. Moral judgment may derive from values or norms (principles and rules). In psychological terms conscience is often described as leading to feelings of remorse when a human commits actions that go against his/her moral values and to feelings of rectitude or integrity when actions conform to such norms.[1] The extent to which conscience informs moral judgment before an action and whether such moral judgments are or should be based in reason has occasioned debate through much of the history of Western philosophy.[2]
Yeah. Simple single sentence from me which doesn't do your comment justice.
The connection between consciousness as an idea expressed by this declaration, and general extant environment is an interesting philosophical pursuit. I didn't think conscience so much, as an anterior attribute. But apologies if I appeared curt. I need practice.
No offence taken. Sometimes someone (me) is just wrong, and it shouldn't be unacceptable to point that out in so many words. Conscience and consciousness, despite the common root, just doesn't mean the same thing.
I think that argument depends on a certain definition of "objective". A professor of mine argued that there are objective moral values because that there are certain actions that basically all people consider wrong. For example, killing an innocent person for fun. Under his definition, that would be an objectively immoral action.
The notion of objective moral values is that the "right" moral values exist independent of humans and the human mind. (I think.) It is usually a position held by religious types like William Lane Craig.