Premise 1. "Wrong" means the reasoning used in an argument was flawed. Another notion of "wrong" is wrong method. Misknowledge how.
Definition 2. Wishes are not produced by reason. Neither they are in scope of methodology.
Conclusion 3. From 1 and 2: Wishes can't be wrong. If someone likes white chocolate, he is not wrong even if you don't like white chocolate. If a misanthrope wants the whole of humanity to cease to exist just because he hates humans, he is not wrong. That does not mean you should not oppose him if you don't want humanity to cease to exist.
Conclusion 4. Sound normative theories can't set wishes. They can't tell which wishes are right and wrong. This follows from 3. Ethics tries to answer what is right and wrong. Since wishes can't be right or wrong they are out of the scope of ethics. So, ethics can only set means for given wishes. It follows that almost all normative theories so far were unsound, starting from commandments and CI, utilitarianism, virtue and ethics included.
But here comes the difference. If a person wants humanity to cease to exist because he believes humanity is causing harm to nature (where the wish in this case is to protect nature, for example) and not because he simply hates humans, this belongs to ethics. You can convince that person otherwise without any coercion or reward, in theory.
As far as I am aware most philosophers somehow think that "murder is wrong" is a moral rule in the sense that "no one should murder". However, if we ask them "why?", sometimes they will just refuse to answer, or they will say that these actions are wrong, but "wrong" only applies to reason. So, they should show what fallacy has been committed. Sometimes they will be able to produce a further reason, but there either will be a point when they can't or they will use circular reasoning. This makes me think this treatment of morality is hopeless.
Why are the majority of philosophers moral universalists then? Doesn't my argument show they are wrong? If not, what is a possible response? Do their theories of logic allow them to say that wishes, which are not produced by reason, can be wrong? Or is there another explanation?
I do not argue that two wishes can't be incompatible. I don't even argue that a single wish might be unpractical. One can be wrong in thinking he can fly to the Moon right now. But one can't be wrong in wishing to fly to the Moon right now.
P.S. The question has no meaning at all. Because it is playing with words. Those which have no meaning. Should remain closed.