"Nature is impartial and treats all people as straw dogs"

I think the concept of "right" and "wrong" are arbitary distinctions based on the desire to fufil some goal or narrative and as such are dependant on the person or culture that defines these terms. Nature's only involvement here is the application of cause and effect of natural laws and does not seek to guide people one way or another (although I suppose they might anthropomorphize it as a surrogate for their own observations, conscious or otherwise).

At the heart of the problem, I think, is the uncertainty of knowing whether one's actions are right or wrong (for a given definition), and so would suggest that learning to accept the fact we may need to make choices based on incomplete information or understanding is central to achieving a sense of "following the right path". Alternatively one may seek to reach a state of mind in which they feel that everything they do is correct because they are fully convinced of their convictions... but I think that is a more dangerous suggestion.