Someone does something you dislike. Then there are options.
Option 1, the "universal morality" option: actions are right or wrong. If somebody did something wrong, you can prove to them that they did something wrong. So you should figure out how to prove that they did something wrong. If you can, they should listen. If you can't, you should shut up.
Option 2, the "creating consequences" option: if you do something I dislike, there will be consequences. Maybe I will stop talking to you. Maybe I will bite you. Who knows. The important point is: what you did isn't necessarily wrong — there simply are going to be consequences for it. Maybe it was very right, and then the consequences are just the cost of doing the right thing.
For a few years, I was in favor of the universal morality option. Nowadays I am in favor of the "consequences" option.
It's not because consequences seem to be such a good option. Maybe they aren't. It's mostly because living as a "conduit of universal morality" turned out to be very tiresome and I don't want to do it anymore.
I also suspect living as a conduit of universal morality screws people up and warps their development. But I'm not sure. I woke up at 5:30am today and went to the snowy mountains. Now it's midnight and my eyes are dry and my nose skin wants to detach from my face. Don't ask me to be sure of anything.
One thing I will say is that it's so very easy to argue about morality forever. When holding an opinion doesn't have any consequences for you, it's easy to arrive at some dumbass opinion. I think having skin in the game is good for not having dumbass opinions.