Almost all religions come with a prepackaged morale code. Most of them contradicts each other in some sense, though if one considers only relation between believers, most of them are surprisingly similar. The most known points of conflict are polygamy/polyamory, sexual perversions and sex outside marriage.
Many animals can be said to have Blue And Orange Morality, if you can apply a concept like Morality to them in the first place:
Bonobos' morality is significantly different from that of humans' (though severalhumans have said we should follow their example once learning Bonobos resolve conflicts through sex.) The same goes for conflicts between family members, unless there is a chance of impregnation. Impregnation of close family members is the only reason bonobos will refuse sex. Since they never know who fathers are, this works out to "no mothers with sons, or (maternal) siblings with each other". Fullstop.
Even when compared to other animals, cuttlefish look for strange things when mating. While females of other species will seek out the biggest and strongest males to mate with, cuttlefish seem to value cleverness and ingenuity as well. Sometimes, a small male will approach a mating couple, disguised as a female. If the bigger male buys the disguise and invites "her" in, the real female will allow the small one to mate with her, allowing her to spawn both big and smart offspring.
The anglerfish is among the weirdest beings to be on the earth. There are several different species and the specific details vary, but in general, the male anglerfish is a tiny fish with nothing going for it but a keen sense of smell - in many species, the male doesn't even have a complete digestive tract, and cannot survive on it's own for very long. The female has a glowing fishing lure it can use to draw in its own food, and retractable teeth to can eat things twice its size. The male's sense of smell is tremendously keen, however, and can easily detect even a distant female by the pheromones she releases into the water. The male hunts down the female, whereupon he bites her to latch on. Having done so, he then releases an enzyme that dissolves his mouth and the flesh of the female he's bitten. Shortly, the two fuse together at the level of blood vessels. Thereafter, the male's body begins to atrophy in response to the hormones in her blood. Muscles and digestive system usually are the first to be absorbed, followed by the eyes, heart, and finally the brain, each absorbed by the female's body, leaving nothing but a little sack of flesh attached to the female containing the male's gonads. The gonads release sperm in response to hormone changes in her blood when she releases eggs, and it's not uncommon for larger and older females to have the remains of several males attached to her. http://theoatmeal.com/comics/angler
By the morals of any human culture on earth, bottlenose dolphins could easily be regarded as the most evil animals. In zoos, Bottlenose dolphins are never put in with other species of dolphin, because the Bottlenose will frequently torment and rape them. Dolphins are also one of the few species besides humans to have discovered sex slavery - in the wild, groups of males will sometimes surround females and prevent them from eating until the females submit to rape. Some also seem to delight in torture.
In many species of spiders, the male will tie down the female with silk first before attempting to mate with her, probably because she is much larger than him and may try to eat him. Similarly, male tarantulas grow small blunt "hooks" on their first pair of legs when they reach sexual maturity. These hooks have no purpose other than to catch and hold the female's fangs - Blue and Orange Morality on both sides, since it's not so much rape as the only way two instinctive killing machines can manage to reproduce.
You may have seen pictures of orangutans with large, distinctive cheeks and some without. Evidently it's the male of the species that produces those cheeks, but only if he lives a certain lifestyle. If he settles down, claims a territory, and waits for the ladies to come to him, he grows big cheeks. The other male lifestyle is known as "roam and rape".
Infanticide is common among many animals, often it is done because it causes the mother to go into heat faster.
Females kill their baby animals, too. If they're stronger, female rats will kill the offspring of other females to make room for their own litters.
Some mother animals appear remarkably indifferent to their offspring by human standards. It's not uncommon for a mother giraffe to step over a fence and just keep on walking, leaving behind her baby that isn't tall enough to cross it.
Some species of mammals sometimes eat their own off-spring if it is born sick or disabled. Some can argue that they do it out of a weird kind of mercy.
Fratricide is apparently quite common among bird hatchlings. After all, it is easier for the parents to feed fewer mouths, and the weaker siblings would probably compromise the species. It's also common amongst spotted hyena pups, but only if they're of the same gender, when one's male and one's female the female takes the lead.
Cannibalism is common among octopi.
Natural selection itself could be said to promote Blue And Orange Morality of a sort, as it promotes behaviors that maximize an individual's genetic contribution to future generations. Period. Whether that maximization occurs through intrafamilial altruism that safeguards one's close kin at one's own expense, or through rape, infanticide, and brutally killing off one's competitors doesn't make a lick of difference, so long as it works.
Ruth Benedict's The Chrysanthemum and the Sword is an excellent account of just how incomprehensible the Americans and the Japanese were to each other during WWII: Americans thought the Japanese must be crazy for comitting mass suicide attacks and finding death preferable to surrender, while the Japanese thought Americans must be crazy for being willing to dishonor themselves by surrendering. The best example is seppuku, the old Japanese practice of ritual suicide in order to regain one's honor. In western thought suicide is considered the ultimate act of cowardice (or in religious cases, a sin).
Japan, and to a lesser extent the rest of the world, could not comprehend why America would frequently engage in expensive and often casualty filled rescue missions. The Japanese didn't even know what to make of this practice, because it showed a great deal of courage and honor on the part of the rescuers, but they still didn't understand why they were risking and sacrificing their lives for cowards who couldn't be bothered to die honorably. Even America's allies didn't get the rational behind endangering and outright sacrificing the lives of the many for the lives of the few. Really the United States as a whole was just uncomfortable with the idea of condemning anyone to die.
Within contemporary normative ethics are three major types of ethical theory: Consequentialism (the morality of an action is dictated by its consequences), Deontological ethics (the morality of an action is based on duty) and virtue ethics (morality is based on virtues). The morality of a given decision will vary widely between them.
Literature from all sorts of ancient cultures falls into this trope. Some of the stuff we take for granted in classical literature can be pretty bizarre for those unfamiliar with ancient Bronze Age customs. Far from being considered barbaric, it was probably just a description of "the status quo" back then. Advocates of more recognizably modern value systems were considered kooks.
The Aztecs had a thing for human sacrifice. It was originally considered an honor to be sacrificed, so rival cities would host ball games; the captain of the winning team would be sacrificed. Changing mores (and the realization that their conquered neighbors didn't quite feel the same way) partially led to the downfall of the Aztec empire, since the invading Spanish were identified with Quetzalcoatl—a god that was opposed to human sacrifice.
The whole sacrificing the winner thing makes perfect sense when you think about it: why wouldn't you give the gods the very best person as a sacrifice? For the same reason, some cultures would sacrifice their king in times of crisis to please the gods.
The Aztecs also had a rich history of Imperialism and enslaving people so that they could be used as unwilling human sacrifices, leading to their neighbors regarding them as an unholy mixture of The Empire and Religion of Evil.
The Mayans, on the other hand, were more big on self-sacrifice. They weren't averse to a little human sacrifice, but they were mainly concerned with body purification through bloodletting. Sexual stuff was considered relatively unclean, so the Mayans purified themselves by drawing barbed threads through their tongues and penises.
James Bowman in Honor: A History traces the honor codes of various times and civilizations and points out that they have universal similarities and striking differences. He also believes that the old style honor code is becoming Blue And Orange Morality to a number of modern people.
An example he gives was of a Obviously Not Intrepid Reporter (whom he mercifully refuses to name) he heard of in Iraq who persuaded a female soldier to ride in his car to "use their chauvinism against them" so that no insurgents would shoot at him. The author points out that the honor code of Middle Eastern terrorists is not quite that of a Quintessential British Gentleman, the differences are as complex as the similarities, and in general they would have no problems shooting at a female soldier.
Take two people completely opposed on some issue- say an avid hunter and a member of an animal rights group. Chances are, they will find themselves unable to comprehend the other's point of view. The core element of many animal rights arguments is that animals have the same rights as people (or should), thus, shooting them is morally equivalent (or at least similar) to murder. Meanwhile, the core elements of the hunter's viewpoint is that this argument is patently false, and that humans who hunt are as much a part of the natural environment as any other apex predator. These two views simply cannot be resolved in any meaningful way, and both sides believe they are "good" while the other side is "evil" (or, at least, willfully ignorant), making the essential conflict a blue-and-orange morality issue.
A literal example from Cold War days. Two power blocs that found it pretty difficult to understand each other's particular ethics and moralities - the capitalist and communist - were facing each other down over a divided German border for over forty years. When NATO had its annual manoevres and field exercises in West Germany, rather than risk offence to the Russians by denoting the "invading from the East" faction the Red Army, and making it obvious by calling the "defending from the West" side the white Army, the convention evolved that called the two sides in NATO wargames "Blue" and "Orange". A whole generation of NATO officers passed through their countries' armed forces thinking of the Warsaw Pact as "Orange Army" and their own side as "Blue Army"...
Watergate is the perfect example: The Russians couldn't believe Nixon, a powerful and effective national leader, was really brought down by the kind of things that were a matter of course in the USSR. The Russians thought it was some sort of coup, possibly because of Nixon's policy of détente with the USSR.
The election of Pope John Paul II was another example. The Sovs considered this proof that the West had the College of Cardinals in their pocket.
It's often been said that the United States represented freedom at the expense of equality while the Soviet Union represented equality at the expense of freedom. This can be seen in the propaganda of both sides, as American propaganda focused on portraying the U.S.S.R. as insufficiently free while Soviet propaganda focused on portraying the U.S. as insufficiently equal. For example, the Americans might attack the Soviets for not having things like freedom of speech, while the Soviets would consider the American level of unemployment to be a more important issue (the Soviets didn't believe Americans truly had freedom of speech in the first place, and thought raising that issue was just some weird kind of subterfuge).
The above is particularly evident in a common Russian joke/political satire of the 50's and 60's, where an American rakes a Russian over the coals about their economic freedom, usually ending with a pointed comment such as "How long does it take 'your' people to save the money to afford a car?" The Russian then responds "Well, yes, but you lynch negroes!" The Other Wiki has a page on this subject.
Much has been made by historians of the deals made at the end of Useful Notes/WWII between the two sides. For example, Stalin made a promise that he would allow free elections in Eastern Europe. Throughout the Cold War this was used by the West as propaganda and supposed proof of the Soviets' untrustworthiness. However, since the fall of the Soviet Union several historians have suggested that Stalin simply did not fully understand what the British and Americans meant by 'free elections'.
People with certain kinds of psychological disorders and conditions. Some of these are usually considered amoral, or lack of a recognition of morality; however there are people like this who hate things that are absolutely normal, accept things that most people disdain, and judge other people by things that are usually not associated with morality.
This argument is occasionally used to justify (although not necessarily defend) questionable business practices—why should a corporation operate based on ethics similar to interpersonal relationships when it only exists to make money as efficiently as possible?
Likewise, it's easy to forget that the view that corporations only exist to make money as efficiently as possible was not fully mainstream in culture until the 1980s. Looking back on past business ethics wouldn't be Blue and Orange Morality as much as culture shock.
The codes of conduct held by various established organised crime - as opposed to Always Chaotic and Obviously Evil street thug gangs - and esoteric groups can often be incomprehensible to "outsiders"
This can occur quite frequently between atheists and theists, given that the two groups have different precepts that they consider to be axiomatic (i.e. evident, obvious, requiring no proof). In essence, all philosophical debate narrows down to "If you agree to A, you also have to agree to B, because...". Theists and atheists have no A to agree on.
A major example is the nature of what "right and wrong" means. In general (though there are exceptions to every rule), theists believe that right and wrong revolve around whether or not you obey the commands of God, Zeus, the nature spirits, etc. For example, if God makes it clear in the Bible that you're not supposed to "lie with mankind as with womankind", then a theist would argue that whether or not there's any rational reason for this command from a human perspective, you're still supposed to obey God's will because ultimately, God's will always works out for the best. However, atheists (though there are exceptions to every rule) believe that right and wrong revolve around the possible consequences, including the infliction of pain, that could happen as a result of some specific action you choose to take, regardless of whether or not a Godly commandment is violated. So an atheist, rather than taking exception to "lying with mankind", would take exception to the very punishment afforded those who do, because from the atheist's perspective, that punishment is essentially inflicting negative consequences on an innocent person, God's will or not. But since the theist believes that God is the source of morality, the theist could not understand why the atheist would consider the punishment immoral, and feel that the atheist is deliberately being stubborn and defiant. The atheist could not understand why the theist could inflict such a punishment without guilt, and would feel that the theist is deliberately being cruel.
Even though you might say current Western society is "descended" from them, the ancient Romans (among other past societies) sometimes might as well be aliens to the modern West, between the casual practice of infanticide, fights to the death being a celebrated form of entertainment, and suicide being a much more acceptable reaction to failure. It's part of why works like I, Claudius and Rome are so fascinating. Even Saint Augustine, writing "just" in the fifth century, couldn't understand why the legend of Lucretia made the suicide of a rape victim something heroic.
There's also the fact that the Romans were cultural bigots, not racial or religious bigots. This is often gets lost in modern adaptations where Romans dismissing or torturing "barbarians" is treated as being racially or religiously motivated. In truth, you were considered a barbarian if you weren't Roman in culture, and many different ethnicities—even former enemies—who accepted Roman culture were mostly integrated into Roman society without much fuss or bother. They also had no problem with religion as long as you paid lip service to the imperial cult (which was done to declare your "Roman-ness"), and what religion they practiced was more for the form and philosophy than any real religious zeal. Their persecution of Christians came not from religious fanaticism but politics since the Christians' refusal to pay even lip service to the imperial cult was seen as heinous treason.
An example of the Romans' lack of racial prejudice: Septimius Severus was a successful and widely admired emperor who was African on his mother's side and grew up near the ruins of Rome's great enemy Carthage. Nobody cared; he had had a proper Roman education and Marcus Aurelius had made him a senator, so he was perfectly acceptable. Contrast that with Maximinus who was 100% white and grew up in Europe, but who was neither a senator nor an educated man, and in consequence was despised by the ruling class and eventually overthrown.
Middle Ages Europe, despite being the direct ancestor to modern western society, had very different standards of morality.
Until the end of Useful Notes/WWI the British army still regularly used corporal punishments that would be considered barbaric to modern Westerners. Capital punishment for cowardice was common and during the 18th and 19th centuries a naval captain could be put to death if they didn't attack enemy shipping at any and every opportunity - unless there was an extremely good reason for doing so.
During the War of 1812, British Frigate Captains actually had to be ordered to not engage American Frigates unless forced to do so because the few American Frigates then afloat were larger than their British counterparts and had crews which were just as good (the US and UK share many naval traditions). It came as a major shock to the Royal Navy when American warships showed up in the Mediterranean to deal with Barbary Pirates during the first decade of the 19th century. The American Navy was there to put an end to piracy and wasn't taking 'no' for an answer.
Among the Manchu people of China, mothers show affection for their infant sons by sucking their penises, which in the West would be considered incest and unthinkable sexual abuse. Yet Manchu culture forbids public kissing between adults, because they consider kissing to be an innately sexual act.
One Vietnamese hill tribe was courted by the Americans as a guerilla ally against the Viet Cong; the first American army "advisors" were horrified by the tribal custom in which a mother would suck the penis of a squalling infant to settle it and pacify the child - even a young toddler up to age five - into rest and sleep. To the Vietnamese, this was a perfectly pragmatic part of motherhood; a bemused American said it sure beats our custom of giving Junior a pacifier to suck.
Far from being proud of their historic buildings, Saudi Arabia has demolished many Islamic heritage sites on the grounds that they might encourage idolatry, including one of Muhammad's own houses, the house of one of his wives and the graves of his parents.
This is an issue within one culture: Muslims not belonging to the Wahhabi/Salafi strain that is official in Saudi Arabia regard the sites as harmless and the defilement of the graves as being a higher crime. In particular, Sufis—who are all about shrines and tombs and so on—get really confused about why all this stuff is wrong in the Wahhabi view.
The Saudi clerics give the impression that they would like to destroy Muhammad's tomb, too, but that particular shrine is very popular and is incorporated into the Great Mosque of Medina, to boot, so they satisfied themselves with stripping it of all decoration.
The Afghan Taliban destroyed an age-old Buddhist shrine and World Heritage Site in Afghanistan for the same reasons. Seen by the wider world as wanton vandalism, this was perfectly explicable within Wahhabi Islamic thinking as a holy act and righteous in the eyes of God.
Destruction of centuries-old tombs and monuments occurred when Islamists briefly took control of Timbuktu in Mali before they were driven back by French-backed government forces. This is more in line with differences within Islam - among the sites targeted were the tombs of Sufi saints.
Christians used to do the same thing to the pagan monuments of Europe's past. In the year 426, for example, Byzantine emperor Theodosius II ordered the Temple of Zeus, one of the The Seven Wonders of the World, destroyed for this reason. In case you think atheists are immune, the Soviets had no qualms about destroying historic Russian churches as well as anything else which was seen to symbolize the czarist era. And another communist regime, Maoist China, took this even further with the Cultural Revolution. In fact, until much later, Western culture didn't see value in old buildings simply for being old either. While the modern view of an ancient, abandoned stone structure is usually something like "What a magnificent example of ancient culture," for most of history the reaction would have been "What a handy source of already-quarried stone."
A relatively minor example from World War I - to German commanding officers at the time (many of whom were aristocratic in stock), the shotgun was a weapon reserved for hunting animals. On the other hand, the Americans had been using it for killing humans for decades - it's relatively cheap and easier to use compared to rifles, yet still packs a whallop (carriages in the Old West would often have a driver and a second man next to him armed with a shotgun for protection, hence the term "calling shotgun"). When the US entered the war and American soliders began using shotguns in assaulting trenches (shotguns turned out to be very useful in doing that), German officers were reportedly so aghast at the notion they threatened any American soldier captured using shotguns with execution for war crimes. Officially, Germany did file a diplomatic protest with the US over their use, which was rejected.
Griefers and Trolls. (Mentioned a little in Video Games.) Some people might actually love pranking each other or pulling others... as long as it's to cause laughter. A lot of people see a Griefer or a Troll as a simple mindless organism devoted to nothing but trying to make others feel as miserable for one moment as they do all the time... but are promptly surprised to see a known Troll cuss out a fellow Troll for inflicting actual damage of some kind. Some Trolls might delight in causing internet chaos... but if somebody's actually been hurt, won't find it very funny any longer.
Image boards have been seen as a couple of things... among them a Wretched Hive, a meeting ground for the most sick people on earth, or a refuge for stupidity. They may roll on the floor laughing at whatever Video Game Cruelty Potential they can come up with... yet at the same time there have been people posting images of them actually inflicting harm to someone or an animal and being promptly scolded Dude, Not Funny! or even having their IP tracked and the local police called.
On the other hand, there are Trolls who ascribe to a variety of Social Darwinism, who see themselves and their behavior as a positive force for "improving" the culture of the Internet. From their perspective, Trolling you is doing you a favor: either you toughen up or you leave. Either way, the overall Online Culture is improved, because there are fewer whiny babies hanging around. Which doesn't quite work on several levels...
According to George Lakoff, this is the main division in U.S. politics. In his view, conservatives are "strict parents" who want people to be strong, disciplined and self-reliant, but most of all, white and Christian. Liberals are "nurturing parents" who want people to be taken care of. A more extreme example is the difference between conservatives and liberals on one hand and libertarians on the other, since libertarians object to the idea that government should assume a parental role at all.
The concept of patriotism is a good example of this. Many Americans still view patriotism as a positive trait, while many citizens from other countries would view it as borderline ethnocentrism. In fact, what some Americans would consider to be an insufficiently acceptable level of patriotism is still higher than what many citizens of other countries would consider to exceed the acceptable level of patriotism. On the other hand, how patriotism is perceived can also be in the eyes of the beholder, given its different manifestations and interpretations in other countries. What would be considered a genuine love for country in one place could be considered either chauvinistic nationalism or social indifference in another, and vice versa.
Young children tend to have this sort of morality, which is why gaining a clear sense of right and wrong is considered one of the first signs of growing up.
This can also occur not merely between two people in conflict, but the bystanders as well. Example: you're a bystander, and you see a customer walk up to a cashier and start insulting the cashier for some reason (perhaps the cashier is Jewish and the customer is an anti-Semite, or the cashier is "dressed funny", or the cashier happens to look like someone the customer hates, etc.). The cashier responds by calling the customer out on it and asking him to apologize. The customer refuses, arguing that since he's the customer, the cashier's duty is to serve him anyway, despite the insult. The cashier then says he shouldn't have to serve the customer until the customer apologizes. An argument ensues. Then they turn to you, the ordinary bystander, and ask you which of them is right. You could decide either:
A) the cashier is right. Concepts such as morality, maturity, ethics, propriety, etc. refer to how you treat people. Since the customer began the conflict by treating the cashier badly, the customer is in the wrong and should apologize. Furthermore, if the customer doesn't face any consequences for how he treated the cashier, that would set a "bad precedent" making it acceptable for others to behave like jerks and get away with it.
B) the customer is right. Concepts such as morality, maturity, ethics, propriety, etc. refer to whether or not you are willing to turn things into a conflict, and thus make trouble for the rest of the community. So even though the customer was treating the cashier badly, it didn't turn into "an argument" until the cashier responded to the bad treatment, and thus violated his duty to serve the customer. The cashier should have just sat back and took it, since he "brought trouble to the community" by turning one-sided bad treatment into "a conflict which requires two people." Therefore, the cashier is wrong and should apologize.
No matter who "you the mere bystander" side with, the losing customer would essentially perceive you as having Blue and Orange Morality, since it is clearly obvious that the asshole was the customer (for the initial insulting attitude) or clearly obvious that the asshole was the cashier (for responding back, and thus making it a "conflict").
The BDSM subculture operates on a lot of rules that "vanilla" people not involved would find quite odd if not unfathomable, such as that inflicting pain on someone can be a sign of your love for them.
Some variations get even more extreme. A 24/7 Dominant/submissive relationship is one where the dominant has a level of control over a submissive to the point where they become little more than a slave. The submissive's only moral code is to please the dominant, and by the subculture's expectations anything the dominant wishes to use the submissive fornote with some usually agreed upon beforehand exceptions such as illegal activity, anything involving children or animals, or anything that could do permanent damage to the body is morally acceptable and OK. The dominant can tie and torture the submissive for sheer amusement, force them to do all household chores and errands while lazily relaxing and confiscate all the submissive's earnings in their job and spend it on personal items for themselves while allowing the submissive only basic sustenance and living expenses. And most submissives would actually agree with this form of morality and argue that their dominant has a right to treat them more as a tool for pleasure and amusement than a person...and in fact most love this and wouldn't have it any other way.
Beyond this, the scene based upon the Gor novels is especially divisive, even within the above community.
Functional real world sociopaths tend to develop a morality along these lines. Contrary to the media, sociopaths are not all violent, merely lacking in a moral compass. Instead, they create this form of morality as a construct to survive, such as the notion that others are of worth only so long as the sociopath can gain from the relationship. Other examples include the idea of adhering to a rigid code of etiquette, the breach of which is as disturbing to the sociopath as a murder would be to others.
Among criminal-oriented societies, preying upon other criminals can be considered especially low. Other criminal communities find it disgusting to prey upon anyone who is innocent of wrongdoing. These two mindsets do not get along well.
Police are sometimes no better. While many view their role to protect and serve as a higher calling, abuse of power is almost always a serious concern. Despite this, protecting fellow police is often the default mindset, even if the police in question are Not So Different from the criminals they face.