I look at what will bring the greatest happiness but within that what will bring the least amount of pain or harm.

Natural Law, which to me is distilled into one 'law:' treat others the way you'd like to be treated.

Congratulations for advancing to a higher level of awareness or courage and honesty or whatever.

My opinion is that there’s no such thing as a sin against God. There are only mistakes, or what might seem to be mistakes in retrospect. I like what Donald Trump said in that regard: I don’t involve God with my mistakes. I fix my own mistakes. (or something like that)

A lot of the things that we judge to be evil or undesirable are just the natural unfolding of nature, neither good nor bad, just things that have to happen.

I like the words of Lord Krishna in the opening lines of The Bhagavad Gita: “They were not born and they will not die”. All of our fussing around over good and evil is meaningless from a higher perspective.

Empathy is my usual guide. I don't go with the golden rule as I tend to have less attachment than others to things like feelings. So doing unto others would have them feeling a bit more hurt than I would feel. If I am really in a quandary, I try to apply what Rawls called the veil of ignorance while viewing it though more a utilitarian lens. Maybe that brushes closer to the faceless other (from Levinas). That has to be balanced with the social arena in which I find myself, or my best approximation of that society as I can understand.
In short, be somebody who realizes that human are not particularly special creatures (not the fastest, strongest, best natural weapons). Our competitive advantage is our social skills and applying intelligence to our social bonding to improve our chances of survival. If that doesn't help you, I don't think anything else will.

I think of my morality as coming from the Judeo-Christian tradition that is constantly being modified to reflect new opinions. Like most people, I think it boils down to the Golden Rule.

Logic and common sense.

If you need mass gatherings and religion to show you how moral and ethical you are, you have already proved that you are unable as an individual to be moral or ethical individual!!!

Several people have mentioned the golden rule, which is the best, and to that I would add if in doubt the universalisation principle. Which is the posh name for every grandmothers. "How would it be if everyone did that."

And if still in doubt, then your feelings, which are just the inherent genetically programed moral instincts, which have to be the base line of all moral systems, even the Christian one, before it was distorted by people manipulating it for their own self interest.

I'm not so sure i have a moral compass or even want one. Everybody talks about this but in a different way. The religious think they are "pious" and the non-believers seem to be going out of their way to claim they are the same. Your morality comes from your society at the time frame you are in and societal standards are not universal. A modern bathing suit is a great shock to someone from 1920. In some societies sex before marriage is desired. i view a worldwide picture on this issue and not a moral compass.

Our pathogenic 'civilizations' have largely dismissed the role of instinct in human (moral) behavior, giving more credit and necessity to nurture as a primary influence on morality than Nature. This has been an important element in human degradation and created dependency on theologies and the males who created and exclusively oversee them.

The result of this condition has been a showing of far greater genuineness, affection, marginally qualified love and nurturing, honesty and loyalty in our two and four legged cousins than in our own kind. Animals display this strong morality without ever having been exposed to schul, madrasa, catechism or Sunday school. They know not of Jesus or Mohammed or, for that matter, ANY great teacher being exploited or claimed as franchiser of ANY theological orthodoxy. Nature alone bestows upon our 'lower' cousins canons for each species that include ranges of behavior fitting accordingly, with internal, self--regulating social conduct, sexuality and YES, morality. That is a principle reason so many damaged among us long for and trust the company of pets over our own kind. Ever heard 'if my dog doesn't like you, I don't like you'?

We, the allegedly more advanced species, sport many cultural and 'religious' sources for our abominably displayed moralities. So bad do they assume we flawed, (original sin) creatures are from the start, that rituals and sacraments had to be created for 'sealing' purposes of our moral conditioning in which we devoutly promise away any possibility of future freedom from their dubious treatments and organization. We, unlike our fellow creatures, are presumed incapable of honesty, fidelity and love without first being commanded to express them only in circumscribed ways that are always, "world without end" authored and enforced by a cadre of sick, elder males who aggrandize their 'godly' agency with pious surface behaviors and ostentations garb and headgear designs.

Archaeology and Anthropological research say otherwise and attest well to the fact that this mass social disease called Patriarchy only began it's domination of humanity and destruction of human health and happiness about 6,000 years ago.

If there is ANY way to reverse it more thoroughly than the past few centuries of token and partial resurgence of women's and children's status, it will have to take place at the same stages of emotional and intellectual development now distorted, exploited and abused by so-called religion. We MUST protect our children from destructive theologies and faulty societal notions about males being 'leaders' of our kind if serious progress is to be effected. Women must be facilitated in regaining power parity with men. Women and children must as well, recover their status of egalitarian respect within the building blocks of societies called 'family'.

Well, IF we all were to listen to and abide by those inherent Ethics and Morals that have been a part of Human kind since time immemorial then,
A) imho there would be little or no crime,
B) Peace would be the going thing throughout the world,
C) there would be unity and equality amongst all the Peoples of all the Nations,
D) Poverty would not have ever existed, and whole lot more besides.
I tend to include a lot of the Hippocratic Oath as part of my 'moral compass,' one part in particular, i.e. " Do or Cause no harm to others, relieve where possible the suffering of others, show kindness and gentleness towards all,"
Though I will admit quite openly that the last part is somewhat hard to at times when one comes up against what I choose to call the ' rampant dip-shits ' of this world.

Just ask "would it work if everyone did it?" If the answer is no, try to not do it.

I think our morals are taught to us since birth. By several ways. One is we learn very early what pain is. We understand others also have pain whether it is physical or mental, then if the parenting is correct we learn how to discern empathy. It is all about the input and retaining that input. My moral compass is how i feel about others, some i do not like...some i do like...

The center of my moral compass is treating all others and the environment in which we live with full dignity and respect. That which accomplish those ends is moral; that which does not is immoral. Still, we live in a world in which our choices are not always between absolute goods and evils. but between comparative goods and evils. In this world, our choices must always be between the lesser of two evils, or the better of two goods. .

Caring for others, not hurting others

Right helps someone, benefits the species as a whole.

Wrong is any act that harms another without purpose, any act that damages the species as a group.

That is a question that many theists ask. Without the structure of religion, where is the moral compass?
The answer is all around you if you look. Culture. By that, I use the word in its broadest sense. Not just movies and the arts in general but also what is and is not acceptable behavior in our society.
Culture is the driving force that changes religions themselves. At one time it was perfectly okay for an inquisitor to stick a red hot poker up someone's bum to make them confess. At another time you could whip your slaves. Ban divorce or homosexuality. The bible did not change, so what made religions do so? They cherry-pick the bible based on what they think society wants or needs.
I know that it sounds very loose leafed and unstructured. But rigid structures are often too inflexible by their nature. For example; If you teach a young man that he will go to hell if he masturbates. Then once he has crossed that line (as nearly all young men do) where is the deterrent that stops him taking his dad's car out? After all, you can`t be a little bit pregnant.

Seek and you will find. Ask questions with an intent to find the answers without preconception. Right and wrong is not an absolute.

Presumably you were quite happy to follow the bits of the Bible that told you not to steal, but not the bits that told you to kill your neighbour if you saw him working on a Sunday. This suggests that you already had a moral compass before dipping into "The Good Book" and you will find it's still there, intact, even when you lay it aside.
Just like the rest of us, atheists and all.

A quote that I've always always loved that seem to fit.
If you can't tell the difference between right and wrong, you don't lack religion, you lack empathy.

What that means to me, (and this is just my opinion) Put yourself in another's shoes. That may change you perspective.

I do not accept the concept of good or evil, right or wrong, in an objective sense.

Subjectively, these are based on an individuals value system, which comes from ones culture.

First, do no harm.

If you don’t know what is appropriate behaviour once in adult, without referring to the bible you have led a really fucked life!

Sorry but it’s not that hard. Live the beatitudes if you need a reference but goodness doesn’t come with an instruction manual

Without a higher authority, each of us must decide what is moral. The higher authority can be god, or it can be the government. The US Federal government finds it completely moral to kill criminals or send troops to foreign lands to kill people, often innocent civilians.

As a side note, without a universal morality - such as a god would provide - there is no meaning to "evil". Claiming someone is evil is a judgment you make based on your own morals. For example, is Donald Trump evil? Does he act in immoral ways? Everyone judges him based on their own morals. Possibly if actions can be judged based on whether they are good or bad for society, then a universal morality might be developed. For example, allowing the killing of someone when his dog poops on your lawn would be damaging to society whereas killing a serial murdered could be viewed as beneficial to society.