IMO, the definition of right and wrong for individuals within a society changes. Change is normally slow, but can be rapid.
If parts of the institution do not change with the society, it faces a danger of being marginalized. This may be the case for some religions, as its central influence on member's daily lives is lessoned.

As a tiny society, consider an example from the TV program Survivor (I know, this is entertainment). At the first of the program, the goal is for group survival. Very quickly each group defines for wrong and right behavior, to strengthen the survival of the group. This enhances the chances of survival of each member. Those who do wrong, are often are isolated and face elimination.

When the group's merge, and the goal is changed to individual survival, not group, the definition of right and wrong quickly changes. What was earlier considered wrong, may actually be admired by other members.... often revealed by later discussion in the program.

This is a TV program, but does show interesting examples of the group defining what is right or wrong, based on survival.

When members of a society attempt to rapidly change the definition of what is right or wrong, it could impact harmony. This may impact the perception of survival and could be shunned or opposed. Often it is not just what the change could mean for the group, but what the perception is on what it could mean.

For many years, rules (harmony) within many western societies were based on religion (admit it or not, all members are influenced by that). When a subgroup (for example, atheists) aggressively challenge those rules, it impacts harmony, and established balance (survival of members, so this stimulates concern and opposition. If the boundaries and impact of changes were uncertain, one would expect the concern to be greater. Over time, if the changes were not seen as a danger to harmony, (does not impact sub groups survival) the concern would likely subside.

Again,IMO.