kohlrak: Yeah, i pulled that right from a dictionary, too. While i do believe in objective morality (there are a few different potential sources that have been argued over the years, not all of which are religious), i also acknowledge that these have to be accepted first, given that "right and wrong" are exclusively human (unless we were to include other forms of equivalently or greater intelligent life, which have not been proven to exist) ideas, thus need to actually be accepted in the first place.
Very simple: the various presupposed ideologies are not necessarily incompatible in this regard. And, if you pay close attention, you'll notice i'm implicitly calling out "separation of church and state." It would seem that humanity has failed to truly keep them separate.
Mafwek: Then we use similar terms, though I wrote about ideology primarily as distorted consciousness caused by individual belonging to a a certain social group, which is one of two uses made by Karl Marx. And I am very afraid that different ideologies are very incompatible when moral values are concerned (to say nothing about morality itself being ideology).
Depends on the issue being highlighted. A Christian and a Jew might differ on the idea of consumption of certain animals, but would likely agree on something like murder or adultery. A nazi and a communist might agree on the concept of the ends justifying the means, but they likely aren't going to see eye on eye on the role of the state. An anarchist and a libertarian might see eye to eye on the morality of restriction of individual sovereignty, but are not likely to agree on the morality of taxation.
And questions of right and wrong aren't necessarily ideological, since you can find two members of same ideological group(s) who are still in disagreement about what is right and wrong. This make me believe that ideology itself isn't only factor here.
At the end of the day, most people are not simple subscribed to one singular ideology, and among those, each person prioritizes on major levels, but then sub-levels might elevate one idea from one or another, and so forth. There's also "transmission errors" in ideological "education" as well, leading to differences. Obviously this does mean that it's more than simply "ideology," but why bother looking for crumbs instead of a large slice of that pie?
EDIT: To be clear, i'm still saying it's ideology, however there are factors that make demonstrating predictive value itself somewhat difficult. As they say, humans act first and justify later. I certianly disagree with that (as demonstrated by people planning), but it does seem to be the default pattern.